Method for data clustering and classification by a graph theory model - network partition into high density subgraphs

ABSTRACT

A computer based method is provided for clustering related data representing objects of interest and information about levels of relatedness between objects. A weighted graph G is established on a computer. The graph has vertices and weighted edges joining pairs of vertices. Using the computer, the method finds all possible subgraphs H of G satisfying the following dynamic “edge-to-vertex” ratio:  
               ⁢         min     ∀           ⁢   P       ⁢            E   ⁡     (     H   /   P     )                   P        -   1         &gt;   k         
where the minimum is taken over all possible partitions P of the vertex set of H, and E(H/P) is the set of edges crossing between parts of P. The subgraphs H found are identified as a level-k community if they are maximal, which means that there are no larger subgraphs containing it that satisfy the dynamic “edge-to-vertex” ratio for the same k. All level-k communities are output.

REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/677,655, filed May 4, 2005, the entire content of which is incorporated herein by reference.

STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT RIGHTS

Research carried out in connection with this invention was supported in part by National Security Agency Grant Nos. MDA904-01-1-0022 and MSPR-03G-023. Accordingly, the United States government may have certain rights in the invention.

REFERENCE TO COMPUTER PROGRAM LISTING APPENDIX

This application includes a computer program listing appendix on two duplicate compact discs. Each compact disc includes a single file named “clustering.txt,” created May 1, 2006. The program listing is in C++ language and the size of the file is 57 kilobytes. The contents of the computer program listing appendix are hereby incorporated herein by reference.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to methods, processes and systems for working with and analyzing data sets and, more specifically, for clustering a data set into subsets of closely related objects.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Many applications require partitions of a large graph/network into smaller communities. Qualitatively, a community is defined as a subset of vertices within the graph such that connections between the vertices are denser than connections with the rest of the network. The detection of the community structure in a network is generally intended as a procedure for mapping the network into a tree. In this tree (called a dendrogram in the social sciences, or a hierarchical tree in biology), the leaves are the vertices whereas the edges join vertices or communities (groups of vertices), thus identifying a hierarchical structure of communities nested within each other.

Partitioning graphs into communities and searching for subgraphs with high internal density within graphs/networks is of practical use in various fields: parallel computing, the Internet, biology, social systems, traffic management, etc.

For example, the following is an application in biology: Complex cellular processes are modular, that is they are accomplished by the concerted action of functional modules. These modules are made up of groups of genes or proteins involved in common elementary biological functions. One important and largely unsolved goal of functional genomics is the identification of functional modules from genomewide information, such as transcription profiles or protein interactions. To cope with the ever-increasing volume and complexity of protein interaction data, new automated approaches for pattern discovery in these densely connected interaction networks are required. Cluster analysis is an obvious choice of methodology for the extraction of functional modules from protein interaction networks. (See Detection of Functional Modules From Protein Interaction Networks, by Pereira-Leal, etc., Proteins, 2004; 54:49-57.)

A second example comes from the study of social networks: It is widely assumed that most social networks show “community structure”, i.e., groups of vertices that have a high density of edges within them, with a lower density of edges between groups. It is a matter of common experience that people divide into groups along lines of interest, occupation, age, etc. (See The structure and function of complex networks, By Newman, SIAM Review 45, 2003; 167-256)

Due to the fact of its importance in applications, many clustering methods/algorithms have been discovered and patented (such as U.S. Pat. No. 5,040,133 Feintuch, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,263,120 Bickel, U.S. Pat. No. 5,555,196 Asano, U.S. Pat. No. 5,703,959 Asano, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,745,749 Onodera, U.S. Pat. No. 5,832,182 Zhang, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,864,845 Voorhees, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,940,832 Hamada, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,003,029 Agrawal, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,038,557 Silverstein, U.S. Pat. No. 6,049,797 Guha, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,092,072 Guha, et al, U.S. Pat. No. 6,134,541 Castelli, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,195,659 Hyatt, U.S. Pat. No. 6,269,376 Dhillon, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,353,832 Acharya, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,381,605 Kothuri, et al, U.S. Pat. No. 6,397,166 Leung, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,466,946 Mishra, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,487,546 Witkowski, U.S. Pat. No. 6,505,205 Kothuri, et al, U.S. Pat. No. 6,584,456 Dom, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,640,227 Andreev, U.S. Pat. No. 6,643,629 Ramaswamy, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,684,177 Mishra, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,728,715 Astley, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,751,621 Calistri-Yeh, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,829,561 Keller, et al., etc.), and some algorithms have been embedded in various popular software (such as, BMDP, SAS, SPSS-X, CLUSTAN, MICRO-CLUSTER, ALLOC, IMSL, NT-, NTSYS-pc, etc.).

In general, almost all existing clustering methods can be classified as one of two types: agglomerative or divisive, depending on how the hierarchical trees are constructed and how vertices are grouped together into communities. (Examples of agglomerative clustering algorithm are found in U.S. Pat. No. 5,040,133 Feintuch, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,832,182 Zhang, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,049,797 Guha, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,092,072 Guha, et al, U.S. Pat. No. 6,134,541 Castelli, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,195,659 Hyatt, U.S. Pat. No. 6,397,166 Leung, et al., etc. Examples of divisive clustering algorithm are found in U.S. Pat. No. 6,038,557 Silverstein, U.S. Pat. No. 6,353,832 Acharya, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,381,605 Kothuri, et al, U.S. Pat. No. 6,466,946 Mishra, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,505,205 Kothuri, et al, U.S. Pat. No. 6,640,227 Andreev, U.S. Pat. No. 6,684,177 Mishra, et al.; etc.)

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention provides a computer based method and a system for working with and analyzing data sets and, more specifically, for clustering a data set into subsets of closely related objects. The “objects” may be physical objects, such as people, genes or proteins, or portions of physical objects, or may represent less tangible data. A “level of relatedness” between objects of interest may represent any type of relationship between the “objects”, such as how closely related they are or how similar they are. Alternatively, the level of relatedness may represent how dissimilar objects are, depending on the application.

The present invention is a computer based method, or may take the form of a general or special purpose computing system that implements the method. The invention may also take the form of a computer readable medium having computer-executable instructions embodied therein for performing the computer based method. Data to be processed by the method or system may be entered by a user, provided as an output from another device or system, or may be stored on a computer readable medium or computing device.

Some embodiments of the computer based method make use of a practical (polynomial) algorithm to detect all subgraphs whose dynamic density is k (for a given integer k). The algorithm, uses a well-defined measure of density and achieves its goal optimally; that is, it finds exactly the optimal solution, not just an approximation.

According to a first embodiment of the present invention, a computer-based method of clustering related data is provided. The data represents a plurality of objects of interest and information about levels of relatedness between pairs of the objects. The computer based method comprises:

-   -   establishing on a computer a weighted graph G having a plurality         of vertices and a plurality of weighted edges each joining a         pair of the vertices, each vertex representing an object of         interest and each edge e having an integer weight w(e)         representing a level of relatedness between the corresponding         objects of interest and representing a set of w(e) parallel         edges e joining the pair of vertices;     -   finding, on the computer, for a given integer k, all possible         subgraphs H of G satisfying the following dynamic         “edge-to-vertex” ratio:         $\quad{{\min\limits_{\forall\quad P}\frac{{E\left( {H/P} \right)}}{{P} - 1}} > k}$     -    where the minimum is taken over all possible partitions P of         the vertex set of H, and E(H/P) is the set of edges crossing         between parts of P;     -   identifying each subgraph H found as a level-k community if it         is maximal, wherein a subgraph H is defined as maximal if there         are no larger subgraphs containing it that satisfy the dynamic         “edge-to-vertex” ratio for the same k; and     -   outputting from the computer all level-k communities.

In some versions, the level of relatedness between objects of interest represents a similarity or closeness between the objects of interest.

In the computer based method, finding all possible subgraphs H of G may be accomplished by finding the maximal subgraph H that, for every edge e, H-e contains k edge-disjoint spanning trees.

Preferably, G is treated as the only level-0 community and finding all possible subgraphs H of G is accomplished by finding all level-k communities within a previously found level-(k−1) community, and repeating this finding step for k←k+1 until only single vertices remain. Finding all level-k communities within a level-(k−1) community H may be accomplished by:

a) letting T_(1,) T_(2, . . . ,) T_(k−1) be edge-disjoint spanning trees of H;

b) finding a spanning forest T_(k) in ${H - {\underset{i = 1}{\bigcup\limits^{k - 1}}{E\left( T_{i} \right)}}};$

c) finding an edge e that is not used up in the set of T_(i) for all i=1, . . . , k, the edge being a seed edge;

d) establishing an edge subset B_(p), starting with p=1, which initially contains the seed edge e;

e) expanding the subset B_(p), recursively, for each T_(i) and each e′εB_(p), by adding all edges e* of any circuit in T_(i)+e′;

f) repeating step (e) until either;

-   -   (Case 1) B_(p) connects two unconnected portions of T_(k); or     -   (Case 2) B_(p) does not connect two unconnected portions of         T_(k) and, for every T_(i) and every e′εB_(p), the circuit in         T_(i)+e′ contains no edge joining the same vertices as any edge         in B_(p);

g) if Case 1 of step (f) occurs, adjusting the set of spanning forests {T_(1,) T_(2, . . . ,) T_(k)} and expanding the spanning forest T_(k) and, thereafter, repeating step (c) for the adjusted set of forests {T_(1,) T_(2, . . . ,) T_(k)};

h) if Case 2 of step (f) occurs, storing the subset B_(p) and setting p←p+1 and repeating step (c) with an edge e that also does not join the same vertices as any edge in any of B₁, B₂, . . . B_(p−1);

i) merging B_(p)S that overlap; and

j) outputting the set of subgraphs induced by stored subsets B_(p) resulting from step (i), each of which is a level-k community of G and contained in H.

Expanding the forest T_(k) as required in step (g) may be accomplished by recording a track of replacement for every edge of B_(p), and then adjusting the set of forests {T_(1,) T_(2, . . . ,) T_(k)} by adding the seed edge, thereby expanding the spanning forest T_(k) by connecting unconnected portions of T_(k). Recording the track of replacement for every edge of B_(p) may be accomplished by recording the track of replacement for the seed edge e by initializing sequences I(e)=Ø and S(e)={e}, and recording the track of replacement for each edge e* in the circuit of T_(i)+e′ by sequences I(e*)=I(e′)i and S(e*)=S(e′)e′.

Expanding the forest T_(k) as required in step (g) may include letting e′ be the edge of B_(p) joining two unconnected portions of T_(k) and letting I(e′)=i₁i₂ . . . i_(h−1) and S(e′)=e₁e₂ . . . e_(h) where e_(h)=the seed edge, and setting T_(k)←T_(k)+e′ and for each r=1, . . . , h−1, setting T_(i) _(r) ←T_(i) _(r) +e_(r)−e_(r+1).

According to another embodiment of the present invention, a system is provided for determining a level of relatedness of data within a dataset. The system includes a computer processor, a memory in communication with the processor, an output device in communication with the processor, and a computer readable medium having computer-executable instructions embodied therein. The computer executable instructions perform a method comprising:

-   -   establishing a weighted graph G having a plurality of vertices         and a plurality of weighted edges each joining a pair of the         vertices, each vertex representing an object of interest and         each edge having an integer weight w(e) representing a level of         relatedness between the corresponding objects and representing a         set of w(e) parallel edges e joining the pair of vertices;     -   finding, for a given integer k, all possible subgraphs H of G         satisfying the following dynamic “edge-to-vertex” ratio:         $\quad{{\min\limits_{\forall\quad P}\frac{{E\left( {H/P} \right)}}{{P} - 1}} > k}$     -    where the minimum is taken over all possible partitions P of         the vertex set of H, and E(H/P) is the set of edges crossing         between parts of P;     -   identifying each subgraph H found as a level-k community if it         is maximal, wherein a subgraph H is defined as maximal if there         are no larger subgraphs containing it that satisfy the dynamic         “edge-to-vertex” ratio for the same k; and     -   outputting, on the output device, all level-k communities.

The processor is operable to execute the computer-executable instructions embodied on the computer readable medium.

In yet another embodiment of the present invention, a computer readable medium is provided, having computer-executable instructions embodied therein for performing a method of clustering related data representing a plurality of objects of interest and information about levels of relatedness between pairs of the objects. The method comprises:

-   -   establishing on a computer a weighted graph G having a plurality         of vertices and a plurality of weighted edges each joining a         pair of the vertices, each vertex representing an object of         interest and each edge having an integer weight w(e)         representing a level of relatedness between the corresponding         objects of interest and representing a set of w(e) parallel         edges e joining the pair of vertices;     -   finding, on the computer, for a given integer k, all possible         subgraphs H of G satisfying the following dynamic         “edge-to-vertex” ratio:         $\quad{{\min\limits_{\forall\quad P}\frac{{E\left( {H/P} \right)}}{{P} - 1}} > k}$     -    where the minimum is taken over all possible partitions P of         the vertex set of H, and E(H/P) is the set of edges crossing         between parts of P;     -   identifying each subgraph H found as a level-k community if it         is maximal, wherein a subgraph H is defined as maximal if there         are no larger subgraphs containing it that satisfy the dynamic         “edge-to-vertex” ratio for the same k; and     -   outputting from the computer all level-k communities.

The above described embodiments can be further revised to achieve an improved complexity, as will be clear to those of skill in the art, based on a review of the following. Other embodiments and variations on the present invention will also be clear to those of skill in the art based on a review of the following specification and Figures.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a visual representation of a simple dataset including vertices and connections between the vertices, with each of the connections having a weight associated therewith;

FIG. 2 is a visual representation of another dataset;

FIG. 3 is a visual representation of a starting graph and a pair of cluster communities into which the graph or dataset has been partitioned;

FIG. 4 is a visual representation of a spanning tree for the dataset of FIG. 3, along with a visual representation of the set of unused unsaturated edges associated with the dataset;

FIG. 5 is a visual representation of the level-0 through level-3 communities resulting from application of the present invention to the dataset of FIG. 3;

FIG. 6A is a tabular representation of the results shown in FIG. 5;

FIG. 6B is a hierarchical tree representing the example of FIGS. 3-6;

FIG. 7 is a flowchart illustrating the first embodiment of an algorithm according to the present invention;

FIGS. 8A-8C are flowcharts representing the algorithm of FIG. 7 in “plain language”;

FIG. 9 is a visual representation of a dataset to be used in example processing according to the algorithm of FIG. 7 and FIGS. 8A-8C;

FIG. 10 is a visual representation of an initial edge set, E₀;

FIG. 11 is a visual representation of a first maximal spanning forest or tree, T₁;

FIGS. 12A and 12B are visual representations of alternative spanning trees;

FIG. 13 is a visual representation of an updated edge set, E₀;

FIG. 14 is a visual representation of the first tree, T₁, with the first seed edge added thereto;

FIG. 15 is a visual representation of a first circuit, C₁;

FIG. 16 is a visual representation of an updated edge set, E₀;

FIG. 17 is a visual representation of the first tree T₁ with a different edge added thereto;

FIG. 18 is a visual representation of a circuit C₁ formed by addition of this edge;

FIG. 19 is a visual representation of tree T₁ with yet a different edge added thereto;

FIG. 20 is a visual representation of a circuit C₁ created by addition of this edge;

FIG. 21 is a visual representation of the updated edge set, E₀;

FIG. 22 is a visual representation of the tree T₁ with yet a different edge added thereto;

FIG. 23 is a visual representation of a circuit C₁ created by addition of this edge;

FIG. 24 is a visual representation of the updated edge set, E₀;

FIG. 25 is a visual representation of Graph H;

FIG. 26 is a visual representation of two trees, T₁ and T₂;

FIG. 27 is a visual representation of the updated edge set, E₀;

FIGS. 28A and 28B are visual representations of two alternative trees;

FIG. 29 is a visual representation of the tree T₁ or T₂ with an edge added thereto;

FIG. 30 is a visual representation of the circuits resulting therefrom;

FIG. 31 is a visual representation of the tree T₁ or T₂ with a different edge added thereto;

FIG. 32 is a visual representation of the tree T₁ or T₂ with yet a different edge added thereto;

FIG. 33 is a visual representation of Graph H;

FIG. 34 is a visual representation of three trees, T₁, T₂ and T₃;

FIG. 35 is a visual representation of the updated edge set, E₀;

FIG. 36 is a visual representation of the tree T₁ or T₂ with an edge added thereto;

FIG. 37 is a visual representation of the tree T₃ with an edge added thereto;

FIG. 38 is a visual representation of circuit resulting therefrom;

FIG. 39 is a visual representation of adjustments to trees T₁ and T₃;

FIG. 40 is a visual representation of the adjusted trees;

FIG. 41 is a visual representation of the updated edge set, E₀;

FIG. 42 is a visual representation of the trees T₁, T₂ and T₃ with an edge added thereto;

FIG. 43 is a visual representation of Graph H;

FIG. 44 is a visual representation of two trees, T₁ and T₂;

FIG. 45 is a flowchart showing an alternative embodiment of the algorithm according to the present invention; and

FIG. 46 is a schematic representation of a system according to a further aspect of the present invention, the system including a processor, a memory, an output device and a computer readable medium.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

General Overview

Some embodiments of the present invention provide improved methods, systems and algorithms for data clustering. These embodiments use mathematical graph theory techniques to provide a practical method of clustering a large dataset into subsets of the most closely connected objects. That is, when a dataset is made up of a network of input objects (such as the inhabitants of a town) that have associated levels of connection between them (such as the number of interactions between two inhabitants), the algorithm clusters these objects into subsets such that those subsets are interconnected to a proscribed degree and are as inclusive as possible. Embodiments of the present invention accomplish this by considering the objects as vertices in a weighted graph (in the graph theory sense) and the level of connectivity between a pair of objects as the number of edges connecting those vertices (also called the weight of the edge). Specifically, it considers the problem in terms of building trees spanning the graph (connecting every point with no unnecessary edges) and then, by means of unsaturated/used edges (that is, edges whose multiplicity/weight is greater than the number of times it appears in the set of trees), building the clusters by collecting well-connected edges (and, by extension, building a cluster of their associated vertices/objects) in a way that is computationally practical and also produces the unique cluster sets of a given connectedness. This is done such that the result is independent of any ordering imposed on the data in the input process.

More specifically, embodiments of the present invention rely on the concept of dynamic density to define connectedness within a data subset (that is, the associated subgraph). Though dynamic density is based on a definition that considers all possible ways to further partition the subset in question, embodiments of the present invention are able to build both the trees and the cluster sets iteratively with a guaranteed minimum dynamic density in an efficient manner. These embodiments do this by building and maintaining a set of edge-disjoint trees in such a way that the number of such trees spanning a subset while leaving at least one unsaturated edge can be used as a measure of the connectivity (that is, it is equivalent to the dynamic density). The unsaturated edges, that is those edges not being used by any spanning tree, are then utilized both to build the next tree within a currently considered set (if possible) and as starting points for finding internal data clusters of a higher level of connectivity than at the previous iteration of the process.

The process of the present invention is able to manipulate trees efficiently because it has a “fixed reference frame”. That is to say, even as the algorithm searches through edges for ones to include in the potential cluster under construction, adjusting the trees as it goes, the set of new edges to be considered for inclusion is not affected by these necessary adjustments of the trees that are central to the process.

Simple Example to Illustrate the General Concept

To explain the main features of the method in less complex mathematical language, one might say the method of this invention is a method for partitioning a dataset made up of a set of items and a set of quantified relations between those items, each relation being a positive integer (1, 2, 3, . . . ). A small example would be the items {a,b,c} and relations {ab} weight 2, {ac} weight 5, {bc} weight 1. FIG. 1 shows a representation of this data network, with the items as vertices, the connections as lines connecting them, and the weights of the connection written next to the associated edge; this is a representation of a weighted graph (a mathematical abstraction made up of vertices, edges between some pairs of those vertices and positive integers associated with those edges, the “weights” of the edges). These weights can be thought of as indicating multiple edges connecting the pair of vertices in question; looking at the example in FIG. 1, there are a weight 5 edge connecting {a} and {c}, a weight 2 edge connecting {b} and {c} and weight 1 edge connecting {b} and {c}. Note that it is not necessary for every item to have a positive relation to every other item. In FIG. 2 is shown a representation of objects {a,b,c,d} with relations {ab} weight 2, and {ac} and {ad} both weight 1. The missing edges may be thought of as edges with a weight zero. For example, the edge {cd} has a weight of zero, and therefore is not shown.

To see what partitioning by the number of connections looks like, a slightly more complicated graph is useful. FIG. 3 shows a starting graph with items {a,b,c,d,e} and relations or connections {ab} weight 2, {ac} weight 3, {bc} weight 2, {bd} weight 1, and {de} weight 2. FIG. 3 also shows this graph partitioned into two more closely connected clusters or communities. The first community includes items {a,b,c} and relations or connections {ab} weight 2, {ac} weight 3, and {bc} weight 2. The second community includes items {d,e} and relations {bd} weight 1, and {de} weight 2. In this example, to partition as indicated makes intuitive sense: {a, b, c} makes one subset of closely connected points and {d, e} makes another. As will be shown below, the present invention does indeed partition this very simple data set in this manner. However, a complication that can be seen even in this very simple example is that {a} is connected to {c} both directly, by a triple edge, and indirectly, by a double path using two double edges connecting through {b}. To deal with this complication, a more sophisticated definition of the connectedness, “dynamic density”, is employed in this invention. The formal mathematical definition will be presented at a further stage of this patent description.

As stated previously, this invention makes use of a list of spanning trees to calculate the connectedness of a graph. A spanning tree is a subgraph (a graph that is a subset of the main graph's edges and vertices) that connects all vertices of the graph to be spanned using a minimum number of edges, that is one less than the number of vertices. An alternative definition of a spanning tree is a subgraph that connects all the vertices of a graph but contains no circuit (a circuit can be thought of as two paths between the same pair of vertices). FIG. 4 shows a spanning tree (all edges for a tree are always of weight 1) for the dataset depicted in FIG. 3 and the unused unsaturated edges which are critical for this invention.

The spanning tree on the left is not unique. Instead of the edge {ab}, {ac} could have been used to connect {a} to the rest of the vertices. Thus a particular spanning tree or set of spanning trees might turn out to be suboptimal. For this reason, the present invention adjusts trees in the course of the algorithm. It does this, however, in such a way as to not increase the computational complexity to the point of making the calculation unfeasible; in particular, it does not search through all possible sets of spanning trees, but yet it produces an optimal solution independent of what method is used to make the trees (in fact, the algorithm can build a tree “from scratch”, but there are a number of standard algorithms that can be used to efficiently start the process).

The example of FIGS. 3 and 4 will be explored in extensive detail below, and as will clear from a complete review of this disclosure, the present invention may process a graph as shown on the left side of FIG. 3 to provide a series of communities. A level-0 (zero) community may be thought of as the starting dataset. However, it is assumed that the level-0 community has all of its vertices connected, which is to say that all vertices can be connected by a maximal spanning forest (that is, a tree). If an input graph includes 2 or more unconnected subgraphs, each subgraph is preferably treated as a level-0 community and processed independently. A level-1 community is a group of vertices or objects that are each interconnected or related one level more strongly than the vertices or objects of the level-0 community. A level-2 community is a group that is one level more strongly interconnected or related than a level-1 community, and so on.

For the example of FIGS. 3 and 4, the dataset may be processed to provide several levels of communities. FIG. 5 shows communities or clusters for levels 0 thru 3. The output may also be provided in tabular form, as shown in FIG. 6. The reason that each cluster takes the form shown will become more clear following a detailed explanation of the process below.

Explanation of Formal Mathematical Basis for Invention

We turn now to an explanation of the formal mathematical underpinning of the present invention. This will be followed with an algorithm that represents one embodiment of the present invention, described in formal mathematical terms. The same embodiment will then be explained in more detail, in something closer to plain English. An example using the starting dataset of FIG. 4 will then be provided, and the process according to this embodiment will be applied to this dataset. Then, an algorithm that represents an additional embodiment of the present invention will be provided.

As a prelude to the formal mathematical description, it is necessary to define both the symbols used and the mathematical underpinning so that a precise description can be made.

Weight Graphs

In this invention, an input of a collection of related data is presented as a graph model G with a vertex set V(G) and an edge set E(G). Each vertex v of the graph G represents an input object. Each edge e of the graph G is a connection between some pair of vertices of V(G). This edge e represents the closeness/similarity of the two objects in the input data associated with the vertices. For the case of a weighted graph, which is the sort frequently encountered in practical applications, each edge e has associated with it an integer weight w(e). This weight can be thought of as representing w(e) parallel edges connecting the pair of vertices in the graph G.

Dynamic Density

Let H be a subgraph of graph G. The dynamic density of H is the greatest integer k such that ${{\min\limits_{\forall\quad P}\frac{{E\left( {H/P} \right)}}{{P} - 1}} > k},$ where the minimum is taken over all possible partitions P of the vertex set of H, and E(H/P) is the set of crossing edges between parts of P.

To explain again for those not fully familiar with this mathematical notation, H, as a subgraph of G, is itself also a graph, which is a collection of vertices V(H) and edges E(H). The vertex set, V(H), can be partitioned as P=(V₁, V₂, . . . , V_(t)) (where each V_(i) represents a subset of vertices) and the set of edges in E(H) connecting vertices of H in different V_(i) (as opposed to those connecting two vertices in the same V_(i)) is written E(H/P). Said another way, H/P is a graph where each vertex corresponds to some set of vertices V_(i) of V(H) and each edge corresponds to an edge of H that crosses between two such sets. The number of edges (counting an edge e with weight w(e) as w(e) edges) is |E(H/P)|. This is normalized to take into account the size of P by dividing the number of crossing edges by |P|−1, where |P| is the number of sets into which P divides V(H).

The dynamic density is a well-defined way to quantify how internally connected a subgraph H is. If k is very high, then all parts of H are closely connected: no matter how one subdivides H, those subdivisions are closely connected to each other. If dynamic density k is low, some parts of H are only loosely connected to each other.

A maximal connected subgraph H of G with dynamic density at least k is a level-k community. By maximal here, we mean as inclusive as possible both of vertices from V(G) (every vertex that can be included is included) and also of edges (the edges E(H) are exactly those edges in E(G) that connect vertices V(H)). So in terms of this definition, the goal of this invention is, for a given integer h and an input graph G, to find a partition {V_(1,) V_(2, . . . ,) V_(t)} of V(G) such that each subgraph of G induced by V_(i) is a level-h community. That is, every subgraph of G induced by V_(i) is of dynamic density at least h, while every subgraph that contains some vertices from two distinct parts V_(i) and V_(j) is of dynamic density less than h.

The full output of the algorithm is a hierarchical tree with the entire input graph G as the root (the level-0 community) constructed so that each node N in the k-th level of the tree represents a level-k community of the input G with its children (in the (k+1)th-level of the tree) all the level-(k+1) communities contained in N. The goal as stated in the previous paragraph would represent the hth level of this hierarchical tree of graphs.

Background of the Mathematical Issues Associated with this Invention

The most critical issue for algorithm design is complexity.

The number of partitions of a set of order n is call the Bell number and is denoted by B_(n) (see the book by P. J. Cameron (1994) “Combinatorics: topics, techniques, algorithms” p39, and the book by G. E. Andrews (1984) “The Theory of Partitions” p214). It can be shown that the Bell number B, satisfies the relation B _(n)>2^(n−1) by applying recursively that the number of partitions of a set of size n into exactly two non-empty subsets is 2^(n−1)−1. The above estimation of the Bell number can also be proved by applying the following recursive formula $B_{n} = {\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{n}{\begin{pmatrix} {n - 1} \\ {k - 1} \end{pmatrix}B_{k - 1}}}$ (see the book by P. J. Cameron (1994) “Combinatorics: topics, techniques, algorithms” p40) and that the sum of binomial coefficients is 2^(n−1) and each B_(k−1)≧1.

So one can conclude that the Bell number B_(n) is at least an exponential function. That is, the complexity of the determination of the dynamic density of a graph would be unfeasible if it was determined by searching all possible partitions of the vertex set.

However, the algorithm presented herein is able to determine the dynamic density with a polynomial complexity (at most O(h²n²) and O(m²), where n=|V(G)|, the number of vertices/data items, m=|E(G)|, the total weight of G, and h is the maximum dynamic density of the goal partition). That is, the algorithm is feasible and practical.

As was described earlier, this invention is based on a description using spanning trees which is equivalent to the one above in terms of dynamic density. It is this that allows a practical algorithm.

Mathematical Claim: A graph H is of dynamic density at least k if and only if, for every edge e of H, the subgraph H-e contains k edge-disjoint spanning trees.

The proof of this claim is presented below. First, it is appropriate to define again here a few important technical graph theory terms that will be needed here and in later items describing the algorithm.

-   Circuit: a minimal non-empty subgraph of G in which each pair of     vertices is connected by means of two disjoint edge sets. (That is,     a circuit is just what one would expect from the everyday use of the     word.) -   Forest: a graph which has no circuits. -   Tree: a forest which is connected. -   Spanning forest: a spanning forest T of graph H is a forest that is     a subgraph of H and that contains all vertices of H (that is,     V(T)=V(H)). -   Spanning tree: a connected spanning forest.     Proof of claim: Assume that H is a graph satisfying the following     inequality:     ${\min\limits_{\forall\quad P}\frac{{E\left( {H/P} \right)}}{{P} - 1}} > {k.}$     Let e be an arbitrary edge of H. In the graph H−e, we have the     following inequality for every partition P of V(H):     ${\min\limits_{\forall\quad P}\frac{{E\left( {\left( {H - e} \right)/P} \right)}}{{P} - 1}} > {k.}$     By a theorem in graph theory (Tutte and Nash-Williams, J. London     Math. Soc. 1961), the graph H−e contains k edge-disjoint spanning     trees. This completes one direction of the proof.

Next, we assume that, for every edge e of H, the graph H−e contains k edge-disjoint spanning trees T₁, . . . T_(k). If there is a partition P of V(H) such that ${\min\limits_{\forall\quad P}\frac{{E\left( {H/P} \right)}}{{P} - 1}} > {k.}$ Choose e as a cross edge between two parts of P. By contracting each part of P to a single vertex, each T/P becomes a connected, spanning subgraph of (H−e)/P, each of which contains at least |P|−1 edges (the number of cross edges in T₁/P). The sum of all those cross edges would contradict the above inequality; this completes the proof in the other direction. Sample Algorithm Illustrating a First Embodiment of the Present Invention Summary List of Main Variables Used in the Algorithm

-   B_(p): edges of potential level-k community. A subset of edges from     E(G). -   c_(T)(e): coverage of edge e. This tracks the number of spanning     forests in T containing edge e. -   e, e′, e₁: edges. -   E₀: unsaturated edges. This is a set containing all edges e in E(H)     for which c_(T)(e)<w(e). These edges are starting points for     building potential level-k communities B_(p) of some level. -   E(H): edges of the graph H. An edge is a connection between some     pair of vertices v, u in V(H). Edges represent connections between     the pair of data points associated with v and u. Each edge e in E(H)     has a weight w(e). -   f(e): flag function of the edges E(H). f(e)=1 indicates that the     edge e in E(H) has already been checked for addition to the last     spanning forest, T_(k), and for inclusion into a potential level-k     community B_(p); f(e)=0 indicates that the edge has not been     checked. When f(e)=1 for all unsaturated edges, e in E₀, the search     for new level-k potential communities of the current subgraph H is     complete. -   G: the input graph; made up of vertices V(G) and edges E(G) with     weights w(e) for e in E(G). -   h: maximum level of search. Search starts at k=0 and runs through     the end of k=h step. -   H: subgraph currently being partitioned in an iterative process. At     k=1, H=G. I(e): a sequence of indices of forests in the track     record. This accompanies the sequence of edges, S(e), and is used to     adjust the forests in T by swapping edges between forests and E₀. -   p: integer counting the current number of potential communities.     Used by B_(p). -   S(e): a sequence of edges in the track record. This accompanies the     sequence of indices of forests, I(e), and is used to adjust the     forests in T by swapping edges between forests and E₀. -   T: a set of spanning forests. The number of spanning forests in T     (all spanning “trees” except possibly the last) is the same as the     level of community under construction, k. -   V(H): vertices of graph H. Represents a data object in some dataset. -   w(e): weight of an edge e in E(G). Integer value representing the     level of connectedness or relatedness between the two vertices     joined by e. This relatedness can represent any type of     relationship. As will be clear to those of skill in the art, a     non-integer value for relatedness can be rounded to an integer     value, all values can be multiplied by the least common multiple of     the denominators or the values can be otherwise converted for use     with the present invention. The weight w(e) can be thought of as the     number of copies of e that can be used before e is “saturated”,     completely used.

DESCRIPTION

The input graph G may have parallel edges. For each edge e, the multiplicity of e is denoted by w(e) (the number of parallel edges between a pair of given vertices). For a set T of spanning forests (that is, a subgraph of G connecting its vertices which contains no circuits), the coverage of an edge e is the number of members of T containing the edge e, denoted by c_(T)(e). (In the algorithm, it is required that c_(T)(e)≦w(e); that is, one can only use an edge w(e) times). The set of edges with c_(T)(e)≦w(e) (unsaturated edges) is denoted by E₀. These edges can be thought of as edges leftover from the edges of G after the construction of the set T of spanning forests.

The input graph G itself is considered as a level-0 community if E(G)≠Ø (where Ø indicates an empty set). E(G)=Ø represents the trivial case of no connections between vertices.

This example makes use of a “flag” to act as a “stop and restart” sign for the completion of the current community search and the starting point of searching another community. This flag is not “on” until the search of the current community ends. That is, the process of searching a new “community” is to start when the “flag” is “turned on”. In the following sample algorithm, the “flag” is a function f associated with each eεE(G) (where “ε” means “element of”). Initially all functions/flags f(e) are set to 0. After an edge has been processed, its f-value is set to 1.

This example also makes use of a “Track record”. A track record is a set of sequences (edge-sequence, index-sequence, or other sequences) associated with each edge (or vertex) of G. The purpose of a “track record” is to record the track of any possible adjustment and expansion of a set of spanning trees/forests. In this sample algorithm, the track record is a pair of sequences associated with each edge e: a sequence S(e) of edges and a sequence I(e) of indices of forests.

The integer p counts the number of potential communities. The subset B_(p) collects edges of the current level-k-community.

Algorithm

A sample algorithm according to a first embodiment of the present invention is shown in flowchart form in FIG. 7, and will be described below.

Inputs: (see S0 a in flowchart) a graph G with w(e) as the multiplicity for each edge e and an integer h.

Goal: find all level-h-communities in G.

Referring to S0 b in the flowchart, the initial conditions are set. This step sets k=0 (the program runs until k=h level is complete), H←G (a level-0-community), T←Ø (the set of spanning trees in H) and c_(T)(e)=0 for all e in E(G).

Step 1 (see S1 a in flowchart)

-   -   k←k+1.     -   (Note: if k>1, T={T₁, . . . , T_(k−1)} is a set of edge-disjoint         spanning trees of H, and c_(T)(e) is the coverage of each edge.         These are outputs of Step 6 in the previous iteration of the         main algorithm. When k=1, no spanning tree preexists (i.e. this         is the first iteration).     -   Let E₀be the set of edges (unsaturated edges) e with         c_(T)(e)<w(e).     -   Let T_(k) be a spanning forest in H consisting of edges of E₀.         As known to those of skill in the art, there are a number of         approaches to creating such a spanning forest, any of which may         be used with the present invention. Preferably, we apply either         Kruskal's algorithm, or, Prim's algorithm so that T_(k) is         maximum in the subgraph of H induced by edges of E₀. (See book         “Applied Combinatorics” by Roberts and Tesman, p. 737-742).     -   (see S1 b in flowchart)     -   Let T←T+{T_(k)} and update the coverage c_(T)(e) and E₀as         follows:     -   c_(T)(e)←c_(T)(e)+1 if e is an edge of T_(k), otherwise,         c_(T)(e)=c_(T)(e) (no change), and delete all edges e in E₀such         that c_(T)(e)=w(e).     -   Go to step 2.         Step 2 (see S2 in flowchart)     -   For each eεE(H), let f(e)←0. Let p←1 and go to Step 3.         Step 3 (see S3 a in flowchart)     -   If E₀=Ø, then go to Step 5.     -   Otherwise, (see S3 b in flowchart) pick any e₀εE₀and set the         track record S(e₀)←{e₀}; I(e₀)←Ø.     -   Let B_(p)←{e₀}, and let e′←e₀.     -   Go to Substep 4-2 of Step 4 (one does not need to perform the         checks in the first part of Step 4 because e₀is in E₀and T_(k)         was constructed to be maximal relative to E₀.)         Step 4 (see S4 a in flowchart)     -   If f(e)=1 for every eεB_(p), (see S4 b in flowchart) then         E₀←E₀−B_(p,) p←p+1 and go to Step 3.     -   Otherwise, (see S4 c in flowchart) pick e₁εB_(p) with f(e₁)=0.         Does e₁ join two components of T_(k)? If yes, go to Substep 4-1;         if no, let e′+e₁ and go to Substep 4-2.         Substep 4-1. (see S4-1 in flowchart) Adjust the forests as         follows:     -   Suppose     -   S(e₁)=e_(i) ₁ , e_(i) ₂ , . . . , e_(i) _(t) ;     -   I(e₁)=μ₁, μ₂, . . . , μ_(t−)1.     -   For j=1, . . . , t−1, let T_(μ) _(j) ←T_(μ) _(j) +e_(i) _(j) −e         _(i) _(j+1) and let T_(k)←T_(k)+e₁.     -   Also update the coverage c_(T)(e) as follows:         c_(T)(e)←c_(T)(e)+1 if e=e₀, otherwise, c_(T)(e)=c_(T)(e) (also         delete e₁ from E₀if c_(T)(e₁)=w(e₁)).     -   (see S4-1 b in flowchart) Let f(e)←0 for every e and B_(p)←Ø.     -   After the adjustment, go to Step 3.         Substep 4-2. (see S4-2 b in flowchart) For i=1, 2, . . . , k,         T_(i)+e′ contains a circuit C_(i).     -   For each eεE(C_(i))−B_(p), let     -   S(e)←S(e′)e;     -   I(e)←I(e′)i.     -   Let         B_(p)←B_(p)∪E(C_(i)).     -   Let f(e′)←1.     -   Go to (the beginning of) Step 4.         Step 5 (see S5 in flowchart)     -   For i, j=1, 2, . . . , p with i≠j, if V(B_(i))∩V(B_(j))≠Ø then         merge B_(i) and B_(j).         Step 6 (see S6 a in flowchart)     -   If k=h, (see S6 b in flowchart) output all B_(i), each of which         is a level-h-community of G. If k<h, (see S6 c in flowchart)         then repeat Step 1 for H←G[V(B_(i))] for every i, and T={T₁|H,         T₂|H, . . . T_(k)|H}, the set of edge-disjoint spanning trees in         H (as inputs of Step 1 for the next run of the algorithm at         level (k+1)).

Further Description of Algorithm

The following is a well-known lemma in mathematics, which plays a key role in the search for possible expansions of the last spanning forest T_(k) and the search for edges in the same community.

Let T be a spanning forest of a graph G and let e be an edge of E(G)−E(T) (an edge not contained in the forest T). Then, either T+e is a larger spanning forest, or T+e contains a unique circuit. Furthermore, if T+e contains a circuit C, then T+e−e′ is again a spanning forest of G for every edge e′ of the circuit C (in other words, e′ is any edge in the circuit created by adding e to T).

Communities are detected level-by-level in G. The main part of the algorithm is repeated for each k=1, 2, . . . , h. For each k, the algorithm detects all level-k-communities in a previously identified level-(k−1)-community H. The following is an explanation of the main idea of the algorithm.

-   -   a. Let T₁, T₂, . . . , T_(k−1) be (k−1) edge-disjoint spanning         trees of a level-(k−1) community H, and let T_(k) be a spanning         forest in H−E(T₁)−E(T₂)− . . . −E(T_(k−1)).     -   b. Find an unused edge e₀(e₀ is not in any forest T_(i): i=1, .         . . , k). Label all edges of the unique circuit contained in         T_(i)+e₀. Repeat this procedure for each i=1, . . . , k.         (Labeled edges are added into B_(p)—a potential         level-k-community.)     -   c. Label all edges of the unique circuit contained in T_(i)+e         (added into B_(p)). For each edge e′ of B_(p), repeat this         procedure again until one of the following two cases occur: (1)         some new edge e′ of B_(p) joins two components of the last         forest T_(k); or (2) the “flag” is turned on. (In the sample         algorithm, the “flag” is “on” when every edge in B_(p) is of         f-value 1.)     -   d. If Case (1) of (c) occurs, that is, an edge e′ found in (b)         or (c) joins two components of T_(k). Then Substep 4-1 will be         executed for adjustment: the forest T_(k) is therefore expanded         as follows: adding e₀(the unused edge given in (b)) into some         tree/forest and recursively replacing a sequence of edges into         and out of a corresponding sequence of trees/forests (as         described in Substep 4-1). That is, a new set of spanning         trees/forest is to be constructed in         ${\underset{i = 1}{\bigcup\limits^{k}}{E\left( T_{i} \right)}}\bigcup{\left\{ e_{0} \right\}\left( {{wherein}\quad\underset{i = 1}{\bigcup\limits^{k}}{E\left( T_{i} \right)}} \right.}$         means union of all these edges sets, that is the union of all         E(T₁), E(T₂), E(T₃), . . . , E(T_(k))).     -   e. If Case (2) of (c) occurs, every edge of the circuit         contained T_(i)+e′ is already contained in B_(p) for every edge         e′ of B_(p), and, every spanning tree/forest T_(i). Therefore,         the subgraph B_(p) cannot be expanded further and is of dynamic         density at least k. At this time, Substep 4-2 stops and the         algorithm returns to Step 3 to search for another potential         level-k-community B_(p+1).     -   f. Combine overlapping subgraphs with dynamic density at least         k.         Other Special Methods and Techniques in the Algorithm Design for         the Reduction of Time-Complexity

The sample algorithm described shows the most basic and fundamental ideas of this invention. Using the same or similar ideas, the algorithm can be further revised or improved for the purpose of the reduction of time complexity. Different methods or approaches include (but are not limited to):

-   -   a. Edges of B_(p) found in Step 4 can be contracted as a single         vertex in Step 4-2 before the processing of p←p+1 and the         repeating of Step 3.     -   b. Vertices of the unique circuit in T_(i)+e′ can be labeled,         instead of the edges, and all edges with both labeled end         vertices can be used for further adjustment/expansion. This         search is processed along spanning trees instead of all labeled         edges.         Those different contraction methods are fulfilled by different         methods of keeping “track records”, setting “flags”, or defining         other parameters.         Important Roles of an Extra Edge—a Special Method and Technique         in the Algorithm Design that Reduces the Time-Complexity, and         Improves the Connectivity of Outputs.

One preferred part of this invention is the connectivity measurement by the parking of spanning trees with an extra edge. An extra edge makes the search processing traceable, and therefore, practically feasible. Let e₀be an edge not contained in any of the forests T_(i), for every i=1, . . . k. Let R(e₀)←{e₀} be the set of edges that are replaceable by e₀. Add all edges e_(y) into R(e₀) for which e_(y) is contained in the circuit of T_(j)+e_(x) for some e_(x)εR(e₀). Elements of R(e₀) are edges replaceable by e₀. The subgraph of G induced by R(e₀) is a subgraph with dynamic density k whenever the spanning forests have reached their maximum.

The existence of an extra edge in a community eliminates some less connected outputs.

Fixed Reference Frame—an Important Method and Technique in the Algorithm Design that Reduces the Time-Complexity and Memory Storage Complexity.

All edges that are replaceable by an extra edge e₀are determined by referring to the initial set of forests {T₁, . . . , T_(k)}. The correctness of the expansion procedure for the last spanning forest T_(k) and the searching procedure of all edges replaceable by e₀can be mathematically proved. Therefore, it eliminates the complexity of recording and tracing all modified forests for every additional edge in R(e₀).

The Classification of the Method—Neither Agglomerative Nor Divisive.

Almost all existing methods for clustering can be classified as two types: agglomerative and divisive, depends on the constructions of the hierarchical trees and the ways that vertices are grouped together into a community. However, the method presented in this patent is neither agglomerative nor divisive. Instead, the hierarchical tree is built from the top (the level-0 community—the input G itself) by dividing a level-(k−1)-community into several level-k-communities. And a k-community is detected by clustering vertices together based on their cyclic connection in a spanning tree of the level-(k−1)-community.

Special Features of the Method (about the Outputs)

Uniqueness of Outputs and Independence of Labeling

Output of a program according to embodiments of the present invention that searches communities with dynamic density as the measurement of density is independent of the labeling. That is, for two different labelings of the vertex set of the same input, the outputs of the program are the same. Note that most existing methods, either agglomerative or divisive, are not independent of labeling: computer programs follow the order of the labeling in each repeating or recursive computation and, therefore, vertices with smaller labels tend to have a higher priority of being selected. The outputs will be different if the input graph has some vertices with similar local structures which are close to each other. However, the output using the method of the algorithm of this patent is independent of the labeling and therefore the output of the same input is unique.

Density of Communities

For each level-k community H of G, the subgraph H is denser inside H than its connection with any other part outside of H. That is, the dynamic density of H is at least k, while any subgraph of G induced by some vertices of H and some vertices outside of H must be of dynamic density less than k.

Well-Defined Mathematically

The special features described in the previous two paragraphs are due to the fact that the measurement of density is mathematically well-defined, and the optimization goal is fully achieved by the program. Therefore, it is not an approximation approach.

Sample Algorithm in Plain Language

The above algorithm will now be described in more detail and in something closer to plain language. FIGS. 8A-8C provide a “plain language” flowchart for the sample algorithm, and will be described below. The steps described below correspond both to the flowchart of FIGS. 8A-8C and the flowchart of FIG. 7.

Step 0: Initial Setup

INPUT—Step 0a: initial step, always followed by Step 0b

DATA

The data is entered in the form of a graph G. This graph is made up of two parts:

-   -   (1) Objects are entered as vertices v, referred to collectively         as V(G). The goal of the algorithm is to find clusters of these         objects/vertices. That is, the goal is to determine how to         arrange these objects into subsets so that objects in the same         subset have at least a certain level of relatedness as described         in the theory section. Objects in different subsets are less         related according to the relationship criterion of this         algorithm, dynamic density. As far as the actual input of the         objects, in computer terms one may assign an index to each item         and keep track of them as a list, making sure to do this in such         a way that the associated relation connecting them is         maintained. An “objects” or “objects of interest” may be         physical objects, such as people, genes or proteins, or portions         of physical objects, or may represent less tangible data. A         “level of relatedness” between objects of interest may represent         any type of relationship between the “objects”, such as how         closely related they are or how similar they are. Alternatively,         the level of relatedness may represent how dissimilar objects         are, depending on the application.     -   (2). Relations are entered as edges e, referred to collectively         as V(G). Theses relations indicate a “direct connectedness”         between a pair of objects; the informal use of “direct         connectedness” just previously is in contrast to other notions         of connectedness that allow a hypothetical object A to be         connected to C if they are both connected to an intermediary B.         Each relation has a strength associated with it that is part of         the dataset; this strength is referred to as a weight. If the         relation is represented as edge e, the weight of the edge is         represented in the algorithm as w(e); in terms of the graph G,         this weight indicates many copies of the identical edge enters         the graph G. In computer terms, one may make a second list with         its own index; each member of the list contains information on         which two objects it relates (a pair of indexes referring back         to the list of vertices/objects) and an integer representing the         weight, w(e). The relation, weight, number of connections, or         “level of relatedness” between objects or vertices may represent         any type of relationship between the “objects”, such as how         closely related they are or how similar they are. Alternatively,         the level of relatedness may represent how dissimilar objects         are, depending on the application.         Goal or Target level of search:     -   One also inputs how many levels of clustering are to be done,         which will be referred to as h. One could in principle run the         algorithm until it separated the dataset into sets containing         one object each (after which, there could be no more refinements         into smaller subsets), but since each level has a computational         cost, often one wants to set a limit. Note that this algorithm         calculates the intermediate levels of clustering, so that the         output of a larger h includes all output that could be generated         by a smaller h. The subsets in a clustering are called         “communities”. Ultimately the goal is to partition the         vertices/objects, but it is just as accurate to refer to a graph         H or just a set of edges B as a community. In the case of H, it         is the set of vertices V(H) that correspond to the cluster of         objects. In the case of B, it is the set of vertices making up         the edges in B that correspond to the cluster of objects. The         goal of the algorithm can be stated as “Find all level-h         communities in G.”         The data used in the present invention may be referred to as a         database, a data set, or in other ways, and may be provided to         the system or method in any way known to those of skill in the         art. This may be referred to herein as “establishing” the         weighted graph. The graph may be established by loading data         from a database or data set, reading data from a storage device         or computer readable medium, receiving data from another system         or process, receiving data through any type of input device, or         in any other way.         INITIALIZE MAIN COMPONENTS—Step 0b: called once at the end of         Step 0a and always followed by Step 1a.     -   (1) Current level of clustering, k, is set to 0 to indicate that         the main algorithm has run zero times so far.     -   (2) The main algorithm is called once for each community         produced at the previous level. In this sample it will be         assumed that the first graph, G, is a single connected graph,         and thus a level-0 community. Otherwise, for the case where G is         made up of multiple unconnected pieces, this algorithm would be         run on each such connected sub-graph of G separately. In such a         case, each such initial connected sub-graphs is a level-0         community. For convenience, in this description of the         algorithm, it is assumed that G is a single connected level-0         community. The first graph that needs to be processed by the         algorithm is the whole starting graph so the algorithm sets the         sub-graph under consideration, H, to be G, the graph         corresponding to the original dataset.     -   (3) This algorithm depends on manipulation of trees and possibly         one forest. (Recall, a tree is a connected forest.) Each level         uses the previous level's forests to generate the first k−1         trees and then creates the kth forest using some standard         algorithm to generate an initial forest from remaining edges. In         this setup phase there are no trees or forests; therefore the         list of spanning forests T is set to “empty” (T=Ø).     -   (4) As the trees are built, it is important to keep track of how         many forests currently make use of each edge. That is, how many         total copies of each edge are used in the complete collection of         spanning forests, T. Recall that w(e) counts the number of edges         in the current graph H. The number of edges used by the forests,         then, is limited to no more than w(e). The number of forests         containing an edge e is designated c_(T)(e); this integer array         is referred to as “the current coverage for edge e”. Array         c_(T)(e) is initially set to 0 for each member (each edge in G);         no edges are in use by T, as there are no trees or forests         initially.         START THE MAIN ALGORITHM—Step 1a: called the first time from         Step 0b to start the process; thereafter called recursively by         Step 6c for each level-(k−1) community found inside the previous         subgraph H; always followed by Step 2b.     -   (1) Update the main algorithm level counter by incrementing k to         k+1.     -   (2) Note: if k>1, in addition to H, the input to the main         algorithm (if one considers the main algorithm as a sub-piece of         the whole process) includes T={T₁, . . . , T_(k−1)}, a set of         edge-disjoint spanning trees of H, and c_(T)(e), the current         coverage of each edge. ({T₁, . . . , T_(k−1)} “edge-disjoint”         means if one considers the graph G as containing w(e) copies of         the edge e, then when different T_(i), T_(j) both use e, these         are different copies of e.     -   Define “unsaturated edges” for the current subgraph under         consideration, H and starting trees T={T₁, . . . , T_(k−1)}. An         edge is unsaturated if the number of trees containing it is less         than the total number of that edge in the subgraph H being         partitioned by the loop: e in H and c_(T)(e)<w(e) implies e         unsaturated. Define E₀to be this set of unsaturated edges e         in H. In computer terms, E₀will be a list of edges. Note that         unlike with H, only distinct edges are being considered, not         multiple copies of the same edge; that is to say, no two edges         in E₀connect the same pair of vertices.     -   (3) Construct T_(k), the kth spanning forest in H. This new         forest, T_(k), will be constructed only using edges in E₀. This         can be done in a number of ways; this algorithm is not dependent         on which is used. For example, one can apply either Kruskal's         algorithm, or, Prim's algorithm so that T_(k) is maximum in the         sub-graph of H induced by edges of E₀. (See the book “Applied         Combinatorics” by Roberts and Tesman, p. 737-742). In computer         terms, we can think of this as a call to a separate algorithm.         Note, that T_(k) may not be a tree, that is, it may not have         enough edges to be fully connected; the algorithm will improve         on this if possible by making adjustments to all the forests in         T.         UPDATE FOR NEW FOREST—Step 1b: called once per implementation of         the main algorithm between Step 1a and Step 2.     -   (1) Add the new forest to the spanning trees already in T to         make a set of k spanning forests for H. So T=T+{T_(k)}.     -   (2) Next update the current coverage of edge e, c_(T)(e), and         the set of unsaturated edges E₀as follows: for each edge e in         the new forest T_(k), increment the coverage of that edge by         one: c_(T)(e)=c_(T)(e)+1. If this makes c_(T)(e)=w(e), then         delete e from E₀.         INITIALIZE EDGE-SEARCHING FUNCTIONS—Step 2: called once per         implementation of the main algorithm between Step 1b and Step 3a     -   (1) A flag function f(e) is used to keep track of whether a         particular edge e has been processed by the New Community Loop.         When f(e)=0, the edge has not been processed; when f(e)=1, the         edge has already been processed. When f(e)=1 for all e in H,         then the “flag” is “on”, indicating that the loop has completed         the building of the current potential community. Before the         community building process begins, the flag must be initialized         by setting f(e)=0 for all e in H.     -   (2) In partitioning graph H into smaller clusters, potential         communities must be built. Before entering the community         building loop, there are no potential communities yet.         Initialize the number of the current potential community under         construction to one: p=1.         MAIN JUNCTION—Step 3a: within the main algorithm, called first         by Step 2; called by Step 4b after a new potential community is         completed; called by Step 4-1b when community building is reset         because the spanning forest is adjusted; followed by Step 3b or         Step 5 (see description below).     -   Level-k communities are built from H (a level-(k−1) community),         by building potential level-k communities B_(p) using         unsaturated edges. If all the unsaturated edges have been used         (“YES”), then the list of potential level-k communities is         complete and the algorithm can proceed to the final part of the         main algorithm. The set E₀is the list of as yet unused (not         assigned to any B_(p)) unsaturated edges. If E₀=Ø is TRUE, then         the algorithm should stop potential community building and         proceed to step 5. Otherwise (“NO”), there is more work to be         done building potential communities, and the algorithm proceeds         to step 3b.         INITIALIZE NEW COMMUNITY LOOP—Step 3b: called once before         starting each New Community Loop by Step 3a; followed by Step         4-2b (note in the order of the numbering of the steps, this         bypasses earlier parts of “Step 4”).     -   (1) Though the goal is to find clusters of the vertices         (corresponding to objects in the dataset), the potential         clusters are initially defined by accumulating a list of edges         whose vertices will make up the level-k cluster. To begin the         process, an as yet unused (by this call of the main algorithm)         edge is chosen (that is, an edge from E₀). One feature of the         algorithm is that the final clustering does not depend on the         order, so one can choose whichever edge is convenient from E₀.         Denote this seed edge as e₀εE₀.     -   (2) The list of edges that belong to the new potential level-k         community will be designated B_(p). This list is initialized to         contain just the seed edge: B_(p)={e₀}.     -   (3) In order to adjust the forests as needed, a track record is         necessary. This is made up of a sequence of indices of forests         I(e), and a sequence of replacement edges S(e). When necessary,         these will be used to swap edges between forests and E₀. At this         stage, the first edge that may require swapping has been         introduced: e₀. Currently, there are no candidate replacements,         so the track record starts with only the current edge, S(e₀)=e₀,         and there is no next edge, so the index of the tree of the next         edge is empty: I(e₀)=Ø.     -   (4) For clarity, the initial seed, e₀, is differentiated from         the edge currently under consideration in determining what edges         should be added to B_(p). The latter edge will be referred to as         e′ and here that is initialized: e′=e₀.         NEW COMMUNITY LOOP         UPDATE NEW COMMUNITY—Step 4-2b: called once from Step 3b at         beginning of a new community loop, thereafter called by Step         4-2a; followed by Step 4a.         Note that the following sub-steps refer to multiple actions. In         practice, an inner loop will be set up to find the circuit for         each tree, and then another loop inside that loop will process         each edge in each circuit.     -   () The set of spanning forests T was initially constructed to be         maximal with respect to E₀. The first k−1 forests are full         trees, which is to say they have the maximum number of edges         possible to connect the vertices of H. In the case of the last         forest, T_(k), e′ was chosen so that it does not connect         disconnected components of T_(k). In either case, adding any e′         to a tree T_(i) will produce a single circuit, specifically one         containing e′. This circuit in T_(i)+e′ is designated as C_(i)         in this algorithm.     -   (2) Each circuit C_(i) may contain edges not found in B_(p). All         these edges are important as new members of the current         potential community. They must also be processed so as to build         the track record that enables updating of sub-optimal spanning         forests. Therefore it is important to process each properly. A         particular edge will be referred to generically as e.     -   (3) As described above, the track record of each edge e in C_(i)         but not yet in B_(p) must be created. This track record makes it         possible to trace e back through a chain of edges that can be         substituted to alter the trees. This track record is made up of         a list of edges for e, S(e), and a list of indices that refer to         the tree where e was found. Updating the edge list means adding         the new edge e to the end of the list for the current edge being         checked, e′: set S(e)=S(e′)e. This means that we append e to the         end of the S(e′) list. Updating the list of indices means adding         the index of the current tree in which e was found to the list         of the current edge being checked: I(e)=I(e′)i. This means that         we append i to the end of the I(e′) list. The track record may         also be referred to as a “track of replacement” for an edge e,         which allows edges to be substituted recursively in the trees         without requiring all trees to be reconstructed. (See Step 4-1a         for the use of the track record.)     -   (4) The vertices of this new edge e are closely connected to         those of vertex e′ and thus to those of e₀(as measured by being         in the circuit created by adding edge e′ to one of k (maximal)         spanning forests). Therefore the vertices in question should be         in the same level k community as those of e′ and e₀. Add the new         edge e by letting B_(p)=B_(p)∪{all e in the circuit of T_(i)+e′,         for each T_(i)εT}.     -   (5) Update flags to reflect that e′ has been checked and all the         new edges from associated circuits have been added to the         current potential group: f(e′)=1.         FIND NEXT EDGE—Step 4a: called after each Step 4-2b; followed by         Step 4b or Step 4c (see below).     -   The algorithm has finished updating new potential group B_(p)         using e′ to include all vertices within k-levels of e′. Next it         is necessary to determine if there are any edges in B_(p) that         have not yet been checked. Note that new edges may have been         added since the last time this check was done. Therefore the         algorithm searches through the edges in B_(p) looking for an         edge e₁ with f(e₁)=0. If such an edge is found (“YES”), it may         at a later step become the next edge under consideration, e′;         the algorithm proceeds to Step 4c. If all the edges have been         checked, that is, if f(e)=0 for some e in B_(p) (“NO”), then the         flag is “on” and the current potential k-level is complete; the         algorithm proceeds to Step 4b.         CHECK LAST FOREST—Step 4c: called only from a “YES” result (flag         not “on”) from Step 4a; followed by Step 4-1a or 4-2a (see         below).     -   As described under 4-2b(1), the first k−1 forests are full         trees, with the maximum number of edges possible to connect the         vertices of H while the last forest, T_(k), was constructed to         be maximal with respect to E₀. This means that T_(k) may not be         a full tree; that is, it may be made up of disconnected         components. The maximum condition implies that e₀will not         connect components of T_(k); however edges in B_(p) taken from         the full trees may; therefore it is necessary to check them         against T_(k). If e₁ connects two components of T_(k) (“YES”),         the algorithm will go to 4-1a so that T_(k) is updated and the         building of the current community is restarted if possible.         Otherwise, that is if e₁ does not connect two components of         T_(k), that is, both of the vertices of e₁ are already in the         same component (“NO”), the New Community Loop continues and the         algorithm proceeds to Step 4-2a.         USE EDGE (TO UPDATE COMMUNITY)-Step 4-2a: called only from a         “NO” result from Step 4c; followed by Step 4-2b.     -   An edge e′ in B_(p) has been found that has not yet been         processed by the New Community Loop and this edge does not join         two components of the kth spanning forest, T_(k). This edge         should be processed to update potential new community B_(p). The         edge to be processed, e′, is set to be unchecked edge e₁.         (End of NEW COMMUNITY LOOP)         COMMUNITY COMPLETE—Step 4b: called only from a “NO” result from         Step 4a; followed by Step 3a.     -   (1) The current potential new community is complete: each edge         in B_(p) has been checked. Before proceeding to the construction         of the next potential k-level community, the list of unused         unsaturated edges must be updated by removing those in B_(p)         (because they are now being “used”, not because they are not         unsaturated). Set E₀to E₀-B_(p).     -   (2) The pth potential community is finished. Increment the         counter of the current potential community: increment p to p+1.         UPDATE FOREST—Step 4-1a: called only from “YES” result from Step         4c; followed by Step 4-1b.     -   (1) Because e₁ joins two components of spanning forest T_(k), it         is necessary to the algorithm that this forest be updated to         make use of this edge. Note, by construction T_(k) is maximal         with respect to E₀; that is to say, if e₁ connects two         components of T_(k), it must be a saturated edge and so all         copies of e₁ are currently being used by T₁, . . . , T_(k−1).         Therefore in order to add a copy of e₁ to T_(k), it is necessary         to free e₁ from one of the full trees. This was the purpose of         constructing a track record as edges were added to B_(p).         Specifically, the track record associated with e₁ is needed,         S(e₁) and I(e₁). Suppose the track record has t edges,         S(e₁)=e_(i(1)), e_(i(2)), . . . , e_(i(t)), and associated         spanning tree index I(e₁)=μ₁, μ₂, . . . , μ_(t−1). Then the         update is carried out by updating the μ_(j) tree by adding         e_(i(j)) to and subtracting e_(i(j+1)) from T_(μj) for j from 1         to t−1. Note that e_(i(1))=e₀ and e_(i(t))=e₁, so the net result         of the previous adjustment is to add e₀ to and subtract e₁ from         T₁, . . . , T_(k−1) while keeping them spanning trees. Finally,         the spanning forest T_(k) is updated by adding e₁.     -   (2) The above adjustment moved one new copy of edge e₀ into T,         so it is necessary to update the coverage for this edge by         incrementing c_(T)(e₀) to c_(T)(e₀)+1.     -   (3) Since the edges used in T, has changed, it may be necessary         to update the set of (unused) unsaturated edges, E₀. If         c_(T)(e₀)=w(e₀) is TRUE, then the edge e₀is saturated and is         deleted from E₀.         UNMAKE CURRENT NEW COMMUNITY—Step 4-1b: called only from Step         4-1a; followed by Step 3a.     -   The process of making a new community was aborted because the         spanning forest was not optimal. The previously seeding edge         e₀has since been used to adjust the spanning forest and the         process of building the pth k-level community will be restarted         from the beginning. However, it is important to note that         previously constructed potential communities B_(q) for q<p         remain valid, as do completed communities, at this level as well         is those that preceded it. This is an important feature of the         algorithm, that the sub-optimal spanning forest can be updated         without requiring the recalculation of any but the current         potential new community of the current level.     -   (1) To reset the current potential community, first each edge e         in B_(p) needs to be marked as not yet considered: that is, the         flag f(e) is set to 0 (unchecked) for each e in B_(p). Note that         some of these edges may actually have been checked in the         construction of an earlier potential k-level community, ones         that overlapped B_(p). In this implementation, not tracking         where edges were checked was chosen over rechecking edges that         have already been checked.     -   (2) The potential community itself is reset to empty: set B_(p)         to Ø.         COMPARE NEW COMMUNITIES—Step 5: called only from “YES” result         from Step 3a; followed by Step 6a.

All potential new communities have been built. These are B₁, B₂, . . . , B_(p). These are sets of edges with associated vertices V(B_(i)). The construction guarantees that all vertices associated with a particular set have the required minimum connectedness. It does not guarantee that there is not overlap between these potential communities. It is necessary to systematically go through each pair of groups, B_(i) and B_(j) for i, j=1, 2, . . . , p with i≠j, and check whether they share any vertices. If so (V(B_(i))∩V(B_(j))≠Ø TRUE) then these two pair of communities will be merged. This continues until there is no overlap between the vertices. For convenience, renumber these so there are p′ communities and check for any: B₁, B₂, . . . , B_(p′). These are the k-level communities of the graph H.

It should be noted that the above communities do not necessarily include all vertices of H. The missing vertices were not included because the clustering process of the algorithm is based on collecting edges. Thus single vertex k-level clusters are not represented. This is not a problem because (1) these singletons will remain singletons at all remaining levels, and so no further processing is necessary, and (2) given the starting dataset and an output made up only of k-level communities, it can be immediately inferred that objects missing from the communities are singleton clusters. While an implementation of this algorithm might add in the singleton clusters at some point for inclusion in the output, the implementation being described here does not.

CHECK LEVEL—Step 6a: called only from Step 5; followed by Step 6b or Step 6c (see below).

If the current level is not the final level, then each k-level community needs to be broken down into k+1-level communities. The final level is h, a level chosen by the user of the algorithm at the beginning. If k=h is TRUE (“YES”), then the algorithm proceeds to output the current communities (Step 6b). Otherwise (“NO”), it must arrange to call the main algorithm for each new sub-graph (this done in Step 6c).

CALL NEXT LEVEL—Step 6c: called only from “NO” result of Step 6a; makes multiple calls to Step 1a (see below).

For the current graph H, the k-level communities have been found in the form of B₁, B₂, . . . , B_(p′). Since the algorithm has not reached the final h-level, the k+1-level communities must be constructed.

For each final k-level community B_(i) found by partitioning H by the current call of the main algorithm:

-   -   (1) Find the sub-graph induced on G by B_(i), symbolically         represented as G[B_(i)]. The community B_(i) is made up of         edges, whereas a graph is made up of vertices and edges         connecting the vertices. (There are also weights associated with         the edges, but since these are the same as for the original G         throughout the algorithm, these can be handled as a global         constant and so nothing need be done with them here.) Formally,         set H to be the graph with the vertex set V(H)=V(B_(i)) (the         vertices contained in the edges of B_(i)), and all edges of G         with endvertices in V(H) (it contains B_(i), and may be more         than B_(i)), and the weights as before. (Note, at this stage it         is appropriate to output H as a k-level community, an         intermediate product of the algorithm.)     -   (2) To call the algorithm, it is also necessary to construct the         spanning trees associated with the new sub-graph H. This is         constructed by intersecting the current trees with the new H.         This is also described as “restricting” the current trees to the         new subgraph and is represented symbolically by T={T₁|H, T₂|H, .         . . T_(k)|H}. Note that while T_(k) may not be a full tree,         T_(k) restricted to H is a spanning tree of H; this is because,         by construction, H is connected and no edge in H connects         disconnected pieces of T_(k) (otherwise the forest would have         been updated by Step 4-1a and Step 4-2b).     -   (3) Call the main algorithm, passing the values of H, T, and k         (to Step 1a).     -   Note that this step does not pass control to another step in the         way other steps do. Rather, it makes multiple recursive calls to         Step 1a. After all these calls are resolved (terminating in         either new Step 6c's or Step 6b's), the current call of the main         algorithm terminates.         OUTPUT—Step 6b: called only from “NO” result of Step 6a. No         steps follow.

Output all B_(i), each of which represents a level-h-community of G. This run of the main algorithm has terminated (though due to the recursive nature of the process, there may still be outstanding steps). The output may take any form, include printing, displaying on a display, recording to a memory or storage device or the output may be used as an input to another device or system or to control external devices or objects.

Example Processing of a Dataset

To see what partitioning by the number of connections with the above algorithm looks like, a simple example is useful. For this purpose, the dataset presented in FIG. 3 will be manipulated using the algorithm and with many of the steps illustrated graphically.

The dataset of FIG. 3 is reproduced in FIG. 9, and may be considered a visual representation of a graph, G. The dataset is made up of objects {a, b, c, d, e}. The relations are ab, ac, bc, bd and de with strengths/weights 2, 3, 2, 1 and 2 respectively. In this example, the clustering will be done to 3 levels.

The steps below correspond to the same steps in FIGS. 7 and 8A-8C, and reference may be taken to these Figures, and the above explanations, to illuminate the following process. In the earlier Figures and text, step labels were abbreviated, such as S1 b, for Step 1b, and so forth.

Step 0: See FIG. 9

In step 0, the dataset of Graph G is input, resulting in the following:

Step 0a

-   -   Set vertices V(G)={a, b, c, d, e}     -   Set edges E(G)={ab, ac, bc, bd, de}     -   Set weights w(E(G))=[2, 3, 2, 1, 2]     -   Graph G defined by V(G), E(G), w(E(G))     -   Set h=3         The local variables for the main algorithm are also initialized         to beginning values:

Step 0b:

-   -   Set k=0     -   (2) Set H=G     -   (3)Set T={ }     -   (4) Set c_(T)(E(G))=[0,0,0,0,0]         Step 1: See FIGS. 10-13

In Step 1, the main algorithm is started, a first maximal spanning forest is created, and the list of unsaturated edges is updated to indicate what edges remain after building this first forest.

Step 1a: find first maximal spanning forest.

-   -   (1) First call of main algorithm: k=1     -   (2) Initially unsaturated edges are all edges (no trees): set         E₀={ab, ac, bc, bd, de} (See FIG. 10). It should be noted that         E₀does not indicate the weight of the edges, only whether they         are unsaturated.     -   (3) Call algorithm and get maximal spanning forest T₁, as shown         in FIG. 11. FIGS. 12 a and 12 b show other possibilities for         spanning forests that could have been used for T₁.

Step 1b: update for the new forest

-   -   (1) Set T={T₁}     -   (2) Set c_(T)(E(H))=c_(T){ab, ac, bc, bd, de})=[1,0,1,1,1].         Because the edge coverage for {bd} is equal to the original         weight of {bd}, c_(T)(bd)=w(bd), all copies of {bd} have been         used up by building T₁. Therefore, {bd} is removed from E₀, and         E₀is set to {ab, ac, bc, de}. The updated version of E₀is shown         in FIG. 13.         Step 2         In step 2, the edge-searching functions are initialized.     -   (1) Reset flag f({ab, ac, bc, bd, de})=[0,0,0,0,0]     -   (2) Get ready for first 1-level community: set p=1         Step 3

In step 3, a check is performed to see if all unused (not already in a potential new community) unsaturated (not used up by the spanning forests) edges are already assigned to a potential sub-cluster. If not, a new community loop is initialized.

Step 3a: check if all unsaturated edges are used

-   -   E₀is not an empty set.

Step 3b: initialize new community loop

-   -   (1) Choose any unused unsaturated edge in E₀: set e₀=ab. The         choice of edge is arbitrary at this point.     -   (2) Potential new community: set B₁={ab}     -   (3) Track Record: Set S(ab)=ab; Set I(ab) to be empty. S(ab) may         be considered a seed edge and I(ab) is an index that indicates         what tree the edge came from.     -   (4) Set e′=ab. e′ is the edge currently being processed.         Step 4: See FIGS. 14-16

In step 4, the edge being processed is added to each tree (one in this case) to find what circuits are created.

Step 4-2b: Update the new Community

-   -   (1) As shown in FIG. 14, the seed edge is added to the first         tree, T₁+ab. This creates circuit C₁, as shown in FIG. 15. The         edges in this circuit are E(C₁)={ab, ab}, where multiplicity is         explicitly represented for convenience rather than introduce         another weight variable.     -   (2) (3) (4) No new edge is found in this circuit, so these         substeps are not performed (i.e. edge ab is already in B₁).     -   (5) The flag for edge {ab} is set to 1 to indicate the edge has         been checked: Set f(ab)=1

Step 4a: Determine if any Edges in the Potential New Community have not been Checked.

-   -   All edges in B₁ (only contains {ab}) have been checked. So,         there are no edges that have not been checked, resulting in a         “NO” This indicates that Step 4b is next.

Step 4b: Community Complete

-   -   (1) Remove ab from E₀. Set E₀={ac, bc, de}. This results in E₀as         shown in FIG. 16.     -   (2) Set p=2         Step 3:

The process returns to step 3, a check is again performed to see if all unsaturated edges are already assigned to a potential sub-cluster. If not, a new community loop is initialized.

Step 3a: Check if all Unsaturated Edges are Used

-   -   E₀not empty.

Step 3b: initialize new community loop

-   -   (1) Choose e₀=ac     -   (2) Potential new community set B₂={ac}     -   (3) Set S(ac)=[ac]; set I(ac) set to be empty     -   (4) Set e′=ac         Step 4 (second community)

Step 4-2b (first pass)

-   -   (1) See FIG. 17 for T₁+ac, C₁. The edges E(C₁)={ab, ac, bc}, as         shown in FIG. 18.     -   (2) There are two edges not yet in B₂, ab and bc.     -   (3) Set S(ab)=[ac, ab], Set S(bc)=[ac, bc]; both edges from tree         1, Set I(ab)=[1], Set I(bc)=[1]. This indicates that {ac} can         substitute for {ab} in tree 1 and tree 1 will still be a maximal         spanning tree.     -   (4) Set B₂={ac, ab, bc}.     -   (5) Set f(ac)=1

Step 4a Determine if any Edges in the Potential New Community have not been Checked.

-   -   Currently f({ac, ab, bc})=[1,1,0], therefore e₁=bc has not been         checked. So, there is an edge that has not been checked,         resulting in a “YES”. This indicates that Step 4c is next.

Step 4c

-   -   T₁ is made up of a single component (it is a tree, not a         disconnected forest) so bc will not be used to update the         spanning forests: “NO”

Step 4-2a

-   -   e′=bc

Step 4-2b (Second Pass)

-   -   (1) See FIG. 19 for T₁+bc, which results in C₁, as shown in FIG.         20 The edges E(C₁)={bc, bc}.     -   (2) (3) (4) No new edge since only edge is bc, which is already         in B₂.     -   (5) Set f(bc)=1

Step 4a

-   -   All edges in B₂ have been checked. f({ac, ab, bc})=[1,1,1]         Therefore, there are no edges with the flag set to 0, resulting         in a “NO”, so that Step 4b is next.

Step 4b

-   -   (1) Remove new used edges ac and bc from E₀. This results in         E₀={de}, as shown in FIG. 21     -   (2) Set p=3

Step 3a

-   -   E₀is not empty, so the next step is 3b to process the next edge

Step 3b

-   -   (1) Choose only available edge, e₀=de     -   (2) Potential new community set B₃={de}     -   (3) Set S(de)=[de]; set I(de) set to be empty     -   (4) Set e′=de         Step 4 (third community)

Step 4-2b

-   -   (1) See FIG. 22 for T₁+de, which results in C₁, as shown in         FIG. 23. The edges E(C₁)={de, de}.     -   (2) (3) (4) No new edge since only edge is de, which is already         in B₃.     -   (5) Set f(de)=1

Step 4a

-   -   Currently f({de})=[1], therefore all edges have been checked and         the community done, resulting in a “NO”. Step 4b is next.

Step 4b

-   -   (1) Remove new used edge de from E₀, which results in E₀={ }, as         shown in FIG. 24     -   (2) Set p=4

Step 3a

-   -   E₀is empty, which results in a “YES”, leading to Step 5.         Step 5: Merge overlapping communities     -   B₁={ab}, B₂={ac, ab, bc}, B₃={de}     -   B₁ and B₂ overlap. Merge and renumber.     -   B₁={ac, ab, bc}, B₂={de}     -   No overlap. Merging done.         Step 6: Level check and increment

Step 6a

-   -   k=1≠3=h, so the clusters need to be further partitioned. This         results in a “NO”, leading to step 6c.

Step 6c: create new graph for next level.

-   -   (1) H=G[V(B₁)], which means that the new graph is the sub-graph         induced on G by B₁, as was explained previously. The new Graph H         is shown in FIG. 25.     -   (2) T={T₁|H}, which means that the current tree or trees are         intersected with the new sub-graph, as explained previously.         This results in the tree T₁ shown in FIG. 26.         Step 1: Start Main Algorithm again

Step 1a

-   -   (1) Second level call of main algorithm: k=2     -   (2) w(E(H))=w({ab, ac, bc})=[2, 3, 2], c_(T)({ab, ac,         bc})=[1,0,1]. No saturated edges in E(H) yet. Set E₀={ab, ac,         bc} (not in Figure).     -   (3) Call algorithm and get maximal spanning forest T₂ (shown in         FIG. 26). FIGS. 28 a and 28 b shows other possibilities for         spanning forests that could have been used for T₂.

Step 1b

-   -   (1) Set T={T₁,T₂}     -   (2) Set c_(T)(E(H))=c_(T)({ab, ac, bc})=[2,0,2]. Because the         edge coverage for edges ab and bc are equal to the original         weights, c_(T)(ab)=w(ab), and c_(T)(bc)=w(bc), ab and bc are         removed from E₀by setting E₀to {ac}, as shown in FIG. 27).         Step 2: Initialize Edge Searching Functions     -   (1) Reset flag f({ab, ac, bc})=[0,0,0]     -   (2) Get ready for first 2-level community: set p=1         Step 3: Check for unused unsaturated edges and start new         community.

Step 3a

-   -   E₀is not empty, resulting in a “NO”

Step 3b

-   -   (1) Choose any (there is exactly one) unused unsaturated edge in         E₀: set e₀=ac     -   (2) Potential new community: set B₁={ac}     -   (3) Set S(ac)=ac; Set I(ac) to be empty     -   (4) Set e′=ac         Step 4: add edge to each tree and check for circuits

Step 4-2b

-   -   (1) See FIGS. 29 and 30 for T₁+ac =T₂+ac=C₁=C₂. The edges of         E(C₁)={ab, ac, bc}.     -   (2) ab and bc are new edges (i.e. not already in B₁).     -   (3) Set S(ab)=[ac, ab], Set S(bc)=[ac, bc]; both edges from tree         1, Set I(ab)=[1], Set I(bc)=[1].     -   (4) Set B₂={ac, ab, bc}.     -   (5) Set f(ac)=1

Step 4a

-   -   Currently f({ac, ab, bc})=[1,0,0], therefore e₁=ab has not been         checked, resulting in a “YES”

Step 4c

-   -   T₂ is made up of a single component (it is a full spanning tree,         not a disconnected forest) so ab will not be used to update the         spanning forests: “NO”

Step 4-2a

-   -   e′=ab

Step 4-2b

-   -   (1) See FIG. 31 for T₁+ab =T₂+ab. C₂=C₁ (not shown). E(C₁)={ab,         ab}     -   (2) No new edges.     -   (3) (4) (5) Set f(ab)=1

Step 4a

-   -   Currently f({ac, ab, bc})=[1,1,0], therefore e₁=bc has not been         checked: “YES”

Step 4c

-   -   T₂ is spanning tree, so bc will not be used to update the         spanning forests: “NO”

Step 4-2a

-   -   e′=bc

Step 4-2b

-   -   (1) See FIG. 32 for T₁+bc=T₂+bc, C₁=C₂ (not shown). E(C₁)={bc,         bc}     -   (2) no new edges.     -   (4) (5) Set f(bc)=1

Step 4a

-   -   Currently f({ac, ab, bc})=[1,1,1], therefore flag is “on”: (“NO”         remaining edges.)

Step 4b

-   -   (1) Remove new used edges ab, ac, bd from E₀. Set E₀={ }     -   (2) Set p=2         Step 3: Are all edges assigned

Step 3a

-   -   E₀is empty. “YES”         Step 5: Merge overlapping communities     -   B₁={ac, ab, bc}     -   No overlap. Merging done.         Step 6: Level check and increment

Step 6a

-   -   k=2≠3=h, clusters need to be further partitioned, resulting in a         “NO”

Step 6c

-   -   Pass H=G[V(B₁)], T={T₁|H, T₂|H}, k=2 (See FIGS. 33 and 34)         Step 1: Start Main Algorithm again

Step 1a

-   -   Third level call of main algorithm: k=3.     -   (2) w(E(H))=w({ab, ac, bc})=[2, 3, 2], c_(T)({ab, ac,         bc})=[2,0,2]. Edges ab and bc are saturated so E₀={ac}, as shown         in FIG. 35.     -   (3) Call algorithm and get maximal spanning forest T₃ (shown in         FIG. 34).

Step 1b

-   -   (1) Set T={T₁, T₂, T₃}     -   (2) Set c_(T)(E(TH)=c_(T){ab, ac, bc})=[2,1,2]. Edge         c_(T)(ac)≠w(ac) so no change to E₀.         Step 2: Initialize Edge Searching Functions     -   (1) Reset flag f({ab, ac, bc})=[0,0,0]     -   (2) Get ready for first 3-level community: set p=1         Step 3: Check for unused unsaturated edges and start new         community.

Step 3a

-   -   E₀not empty. “NO”

Step 3b

-   -   (1) Choose any (there is exactly one) unused unsaturated edge in         E₀: set e₀=ac     -   (2) Potential new community: set B₁={ac}     -   (3) Set S(ac)=ac; Set I(ac) to be empty     -   (4) Set e′=ac         Step 4: add edge to each tree and check for circuits

Step 4-2b

-   -   (1) See FIG. 36 for T₁+ac =T₂+ac=C₁=C₂. See FIGS. 37 and 38 for         T₃+ac=C₃. The edges E(C₁)={ab, ac, bc}.     -   (2) ab and bc are new edges.     -   (3) Set S(ab)=[ac, ab], Set S(bc)=[ac, bc]; both edges from tree         1, Set I(ab)=[1], Set I(bc)=[1].     -   (4) Set B₁={ac, ab, bc}.     -   (5) Set f(ac)=1

Step 4a

Currently f({ac, ab, bc})=[1,0,0], therefore e₁=ab has not been checked, resulting in a “YES”

Step 4c

-   -   T₃ is made up of two components, ac (and the associated         vertices) and b. Adding ab would connect the disconnected         component. Therefore the tree should be updated: “YES”

Step 4-1a See FIG. 39

-   -   (1) S(ab)=[ac, ab], I(ab)=[1].     -   Update by updating T₁ (because 1 is the first and only index         element in I(ab)) by adding the ac (it is the corresponding         first edge element of S(ab)) and subtracting ab (the next edge         element of S(ab)). Update last forest T₃ by adding ab (last edge         of S(ab)). (See left of FIG. 40.)     -   (2) Add 1 to coverage of edge ac, the edge added to the spanning         forests from E₀.     -   Set c_(T)(ac)=1+1=2     -   (3) w(E(H))=w({ab, ac, bc})=[2, 3, 2], c_(T)({ab, ac,         bc})=[2,2,2]. Since c_(T)(ac)=2<3=w(ac), edge ac is not         saturated, and thus is not removed from E₀. The unchanged E₀is         shown in FIG. 41

Step 4-1b

-   -   (1) Reset B₁={ac, ab, bc} by first setting f({ac, ab,         bc})=[0,0,0].     -   (2) Set B₁ to { }.         Step 3: Check for unused unsaturated edges and start new         community.

Step 3a

-   -   E₀is not empty, resulting in a “NO”

Step 3b

-   -   (1) Choose any (there is exactly one) unused unsaturated edge in         E₀: set e₀=ac     -   (2) Potential new community: set B₁={ac}     -   (3) Set S(ac)=ac; Set I(ac) to be empty     -   (4) Set e′=ac         Step 4: add edge to each tree and check for circuits

Step 4-2b

-   -   (1) See FIG. 42 for T₁+ac, T₂+ac, T₃+ac. Circuits (not shown)         C₁=C₃={ac, ac} and C₂={ab, ac, bc}.     -   (2) As with the previous attempt to build B_(i), ab and bc are         new edges.     -   (3) Set S(ab)=[ac, ab], Set S(bc)=[ac, bc]; both edges from tree         1, Set I(ab)=[1], Set I(bc)=[1].     -   Set B₁={ac, ab, bc}.     -   (5) Set f(ac)=1         Remaining Step 4:     -   Both ab and bc are processed, but neither adds any edges to         potential group, since it already contains everything, and         neither improves T₃ since it is already a full tree. The         potential group B, is finished.         Step 3a and Step 5     -   No unsaturated edges remain. There is no overlapping since only         one B_(p).         Step 6: Level Check

Step 6a

-   -   k=3=h is TRUE, resulting in a “YES”

Step 6b

-   -   Output B₁.     -   (end of first k=3)

Step 6c

-   -   (end of first k=2)

Step 6c (k=1 Continues)

-   -   Pass H=G[V(B₂)]={de}), T={T₁|H}, k=1 (See FIG. 43).         Step 1: See FIG. 43

Step 1a

-   -   (1) Second, second level call of main algorithm: k=2     -   (2) w(E(H))=w({de})=[2], c_(T)({de})=[1]. No saturated edges in         E(H) yet. Set E₀={de} (not in Figure).     -   (3) Call algorithm and get maximal spanning forest T₂ (shown in         FIG. 44).

Step 1b

-   -   (1) Set T={T₁, T₂}     -   (2) Set c_(T)(E(H))=c_(T)({de})=[2]. Edge c_(T)(de)=w(de),         therefore no edges in E₀.         Step 2, Step 3     -   No unused unsaturated edges.         Step 5: Merge overlapping communities     -   No level-2 communities         Step 6: Level Check

Step 6a

-   -   k=2≠h. “NO”

Step 6c

-   -   No level-2 communities     -   (end of second k=2)

Step 6c

-   -   (end of original k=1)         (END OF ALGORITHM)

OUTPUT CLUSTERS Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 {a, b, c, d, e} {a, b, c} {a, b, c} {a, b, c} {d, e} {d} {d} {e} {e} An Alternative Algorithm for Implementation

The above described algorithm shows the most basic and fundamental ideas of the processing approach according to the present invention. Following the same ideas, it can be further modified and improved for a lower complexity. Algorithm 2, shown in FIG. 45, and introduced in this section, is one of several modified versions of the basic algorithm with the complexity O(n²h²) where n is the number of vertices of the input graph G and the goal of the processing is to find all level-h communities in G.

Notation and Label System

In order to have a lower complexity, an alternative version has a more complicated data structure and the corresponding label system than the basic one.

The following is a list of a brief description of the data structure and the corresponding label system in this alternative algorithm.

1. The set B_(p) in the Algorithm of FIG. 7 collects edges that are replaceable with an unsaturated edge e₀. In the following algorithm (Algorithm 2, FIG. 45), the set B_(p) collects vertices that edges of G[B_(p)] are replaceable with e₀.

Furthermore, for the purpose of reducing the complexity, the set B_(p) is created as a sequence (in Substep 4-1) so that the ordering of elements of B_(p) clearly indicates when and how those vertices were selected into the set B_(p).

2. The adjustment sequences S(e) and I(e) will be created when they are needed (in the Substep 4-2) based on the information generated in Substep 4-1.

3. For the purpose of reducing complexity, the forests of T are all considered as rooted forests. An end-vertex of an unsaturated edge e₀is the root.

Main Program of Algorithm 2

Input: A graph G with w(e) as the multiplicity for each edge e and an integer h.

Goal: find all level-h communities in G.

Step 0. Start at k=0 (the program runs until k=h level is complete), H←G (a level-0 community), T←Ø (the set of spanning trees in H) and c_(T)(e)=0 for all e in E(G).

Step 1.

k←k+1.

(Note: if k>1, T={T₁, . . . ,T_(k−1)} is a set of edge-disjoint spanning trees of H, and c_(T)(e) is the coverage of each edge. These are outputs of Step 6 in the previous iteration of the main loop of the algorithm. When k=1, no spanning tree preexists).

Let E₀be the set of edges (unsaturated edges) e with c_(T)(e)<w(e).

Find a maximum spanning forest T₀ in H consisting of edges of E₀.

Let T←T+{T₀} and update the coverage c_(T)(e) and E₀as follows: c_(T)(e)←c_(T)(e)+1 if e is an edge of T₀, otherwise, c_(T)(e)=c_(T)(e) (no change), and delete all edges e in E₀such that c_(T)(e)=w(e).

Go to Step 2.

Step 2.

Let p←1 and go to Step 3.

Step 3. If E₀=Ø then go to Step 5.

Otherwise, go to Step 4.

Step 4.

Pick any e₀=xyεE₀. Let B_(p)←b₁b₂ where bus x and b₂←y.

Let Q be the component of T₀ containing xy.

Let x be the root of each T_(i) (i>0) and Q.

Go to Substep 4-1.

Substep 4-1 (The Substep for searching of replaceable edges.) (See Subprogram 4-1 for detail.)

Outline and description. For each iε{0, 1, . . . , k−1}, and for each b_(j)εB_(p), add all vertices of the directed path in T_(i) from b₁=x to b_(j) into B_(p).

For every new vertex b_(j) added into B_(p), always check: whether or not b_(j)εQ. If NOT, then stop the iteration of Substep 4-1 and go to Substep 4-2. Repeat this Substep until no new vertex can be added into B_(p), then H←H/B _(p) , E ₀ −E ₀ |H, p←p+1 and go to Step 3 (starting a new search for another level-k community). (Note, H/B_(p) is the graph obtained from H by identifying all vertices of B_(p) as a single vertex; E₀|H is the set of edges of e₀contained in the newly contracted graph H.) The new vertex of H created by contracting B_(p) is denoted by z_(p).

Note, during the iteration, each new vertex b_(i) added into B_(p) is labeled with m(b_(i)), ε(b_(i)) and λ(b_(i)), which are to be used in creating the adjustment sequences S and I in Substep 4-2 in case that the spanning forest T₀ can be expanded. (For definitions of labels m, ε and λ, see Subprogram 4-2 for detail.)

Substep 4-2 (The Substep for expanding T₀.) (See Subprogram 4-2 for detail.) Outline and description. Create the adjustment sequences S(e) and I(e) based on the labels m(b_(i)), ε(b_(i)) and λ(b_(i)) generated in Substep 4-1 (See Subprogram 4-1).

Follow the adjustment sequences S and I to adjust and expand the forests of T.

And update the coverage c_(T) for the edge e₀.

Let B_(p)←Ø and erase labels m(b_(i)), ε(b_(i)) and λ(b_(i)) for all vertices of H.

Go to Step 3.

Step 5.

Let {v₁, . . . , v_(r)} be the vertex set of the resulting graph H (which has gone through a series of contractions in Step 4-1-2). Each vertex v_(i) is a child of H in the hierarchical tree, some of which are single vertices, while others represent non-trivial level-k communities.

If v_(i) is not a contracted vertex, then it is a child of H in the hierarchical tree, and no further action is needed for this vertex.

For a contracted vertex v_(i)=z_(p), replace v_(i) with the corresponding community B_(p) and go to Step 6 for further iteration. Note that it is possible that some vertex of B_(p) is also a contracted vertex z_(p′). In this case, all vertices of B_(p′) should be added into B_(p). This procedure should be repeated for all possible contracted vertices in B_(p).

Step 6.

If k=h, output all B_(i), each of which induces a level-h community of G.

If k<h, then repeat Step 1 for H←G[B_(i)] for every i, T_(k)←T₀, and T={T₁|H, T₂|H, . . . ,T_(k)|H} which is a set of edge-disjoint spanning trees in H (as inputs of Step 1 for the next iteration of the algorithm at level (k+1)).

Subprogram 4-1: The Search of Replaceable Edges (Substep 4-1)

The subprogram in this subsection is the detailed Substep 4-1 of Algorithm 2.

Some notation and labels used in this subprogram are to be introduced:

For the sake of convenience, non-negative integers μ are represented by an ordered integer pair (α, β) where μ=αk+β with 0≦β≦k−1 and α≧0. In order to distinguish the different presentation of integer numbers, let M_(k) be the set of all those ordered integer pairs (that is M_(k)={0, 1, 2, . . . }×{0, 1, . . . , k−1}=Z⁺×Z_(k)).

B_(p)=b₁b₂ . . . b_(D) _(e) is a sequence consisting of vertices of H that are already selected for the p-th potential community. b_(D) _(e) is the last vertex of the sequence at the current stage.

m(b_(i))(εM_(k)) is an integer label of b_(i)εB_(p): If m(b_(i))=(α, β), then the second component β of m(b_(i)) indicates that the vertex b_(i) is contained in the circuit of T_(β)+e where e is an edge joining two vertices b_(h), b_(j) of B_(p) for some pair of indices h, j<i.

ε(b_(i))(εZ⁺) is an integer label of b_(i) in B_(p): b_(ε(b) _(i) ₎ is a vertex in B_(p) and is also a child of b_(i) in a rooted tree T_(β) such that b_(i) is added into B_(p) because one of its children, b_(ε(b) _(i) ₎, was already in B_(p). The edge b_(i)b_(ε(b) _(i) ₎ is to be used for possible expansion of T₀.

λ(b_(i))(εZ⁺) is also an integer label of b_(i)εB_(p):

λ(b_(i))=min {j: b_(j)εD(T_(β); b_(i))}

where m(b_(i))=(α, β) and D(T_(β); b_(i)) is the set of all descendants of b_(i) in the rooted tree T_(β). Then the vertex b_(i) is in the circuit of T_(β)+b_(h)b_(j) where h=λ(b_(i)) and b_(j) is not a descendant of b_(i). Furthermore, j=ε(b_(h)) and b_(h)b_(j) is an edge contained in a tree T_(β′) where m(b_(h))=(α′, β′).

Labels m, ε and λ are to be used in Substep 4-2 for creating the adjustment sequences S and I.

There are some other auxiliary notation in the subprogram for the purpose of generating labels m, ε and λ, and the purpose of reduction of complexity.

Current status m_(C) (εM_(k)) is an indicator that indicates the current working status. At the initial situation, m_(C)=(0,0). When m_(C)=(α, β), the second component β indicates that the tree T_(β) is currently in the iteration of Substeps 4-1-3, 4-1-4, 4-1-5 and 4-1-6.

A “working zone” of Subprogram 4-1 is a subsequence b_(D) _(s) , b_(D) _(s) ₊₁, . . . , b_(D) _(e) of B_(p): D_(s)=min{j:m(b_(j))>m_(C)−(1,0)}.

The Substep 4-1-5 is to be processed along the working zone instead of entire sequence B_(p). The use of “working zone” will eliminate some unnecessary search along the sequence B_(p) and therefore, reduce the complexity of the algorithm.

c(b_(i)): a (temporary) carry-on label for generating λ.

Subprogram 4-1 (The expansion of B_(p))

Subsubstep 4-1-1.

D_(s)←2, D_(e)←2,

m(x)=m(y)←(0,0),

and m_(C)←(0,1).

Subsubstep 4-1-2. (Check whether the expansion of B_(p) is ended.)

If m(b_(D) _(e) )≦m_(C)−(1,0) then

H←H/B_(p), E₀←E₀|H, p←p+1

and go to Step 3 of Algorithm 2 (starting a new search for another level-k community). (Note, H/B_(p) is the graph obtained from H by identifying all vertices of B_(p) as a single vertex; E₀|H is the set of edges of E₀contained in the newly contracted graph H.) The new vertex of H created by contracting B_(p) is denoted by z_(p).

Otherwise, go to Substep 4-1-3 and continue.

Subsubstep 4-1-3.

i←D_(s),

and let m_(C)=(α_(C), β_(C)).

(In the rooted tree T_(β) _(C) , all ancestors of vertices in the working zone will be added into the sequence B_(p) in Subsubstep 4-1-6.)

Subsubstep 4-1-4. (Update D_(s) for the next iteration in the tree T_(βC) ₊₁.)

If m(b_(i))<m_(C)−(0, k−2), then D_(s)←i, otherwise, D_(s) remains the same.

Continue.

Subsubstep 4-1-5. (Update c(b_(i)) if it does not exist.)

If c(b_(i)) does not exist, then

c(b_(i))←i.

Otherwise, do nothing.

Continue.

Subsubstep 4-1-6. (Adding vertices into B_(p) and labeling new vertices with λ)

Find the parent v of b_(i) in the rooted tree T_(β) _(C) .

Case 1. v∉B_(p). (This vertex v is to be added into B_(p).)

Subcase 1-1. If v∉Q then the spanning forest T₀ is now ready for expansion (and the expansion of B_(p) stops): go to Substep 4-2 of Algorithm 2.

Subcase 1-2. If vεQ then this new vertex v is to be added at the end of the sequence B_(p) and all labels are to be updated for this new vertex as follows:

D_(e)←D_(e)+1, b_(D) _(e) ←v, λ(b_(D) _(e) )←c(b_(i)), c(b_(D) _(e) )←c(b_(i)), ε(b_(D) _(e) )←i.

And

i←+1

and go to Substep 4-1-4 (repeating for the next b_(i) in the sequence).

Case 2. vεB_(p), say v=b_(j), and j>i.

c(b_(j))←min{c(b_(j)), c(b_(i))}

if c(b_(i)) exists; or

c(b_(j))←c(b_(i))

if c(b_(i)) does not exist.

And

i←i+1

and go to Subsubstep 4-1-4.

Case 3. vεB_(p), say v=b_(j), and j<i.

Check whether b_(i) has reached the end of the working zone as follows.

If i=D_(e), then

m_(C)←m_(C)+(0,1),

and erase all of “carry-on” label c, and go to Subsubstep 4-1-2.

If i<D_(e), then

i←i+1

and go to Subsubstep 4-1-4.

Remarks about Subprogram 4-1

Fact. The label m of vertices in the sequence B_(p) form an non-decreasing sequence. That is,

m(b₁)≦m(b₂)≦ . . . ≦m(b_(D) _(e) ).

Fact. Whenever the Subsubstep 4-1-3 starts, the induced subgraph G[B_(p)] is connected, and, furthermore, B_(p) induces a connected subtree of T_(β) _(C) ⁻¹.

Fact. During Substep 4-1-6, those vertices b_(i) with m(b_(i))≦m_(C)−(1,0) induces a connected subtree of T_(β) _(C) .

Fact. During Substep 4-1-6 Case 1, new vertices added into B_(p) are along a path in T from a pre-existing vertex by of B_(p) to the root b₁=x, where,

m_(C)−(0,k−1)≦m(b_(j))≦m_(C)−(0,1).

Fact. A vertex b_(i)εB_(p) with i≧3 is added into B_(p) because it is in the circuit of T_(β)+b_(h)b_(j) where h=λ(b_(i)), b_(h)is a descendant of b_(i) in the rooted tree T_(β) with the smallest subscript h, and b_(j) is not a descendant of b_(i) in the tree T_(β). Furthermore, j=ε(b_(h)) and b_(h)b_(j) is an edge contained in a tree T_(β′) where m(b_(h))=(α′,β′).

Subprogram 4-2: Expansion of T (for Substep 4-2, Expansion for T₀)

At this stage, the inputs are (outputs of Substep 4-1-6, Subcase 1-1): m_(C)=(α_(C), β_(C)), a vertex v∉Q and is the parent of b_(i)εB_(p) in the rooted tree T_(β) _(C) .

Subsubstep 4-2-1. Let

b_(D) _(e) ₊1←v, λ(b_(D) _(e) ₊₁)←c(b_(i)), ε(b_(D) _(e) ₊₁)←i.

Subsubstep 4-2-2.

Set an edge-sequence S and an index-sequence I as follows: S=(b_(i) ₁ b_(i) ₁ _(*)), (b_(i) ₂ b_(i) ₂ _(*)), . . . , (b_(i) _(t) b_(i) _(t) _(*)); I=β_(i) ₁ , β_(i) ₂ , . . . , β_(i) _(t−1) where i _(l)*=ε(b _(i) _(l) ), i _(l+1)=λ(b _(i) _(l) ) and m(b _(i) _(l) )=(α_(i) _(l) , β_(i) _(l) ) for each l=1, . . . , t−1, and b _(i) ₁ =b _(D) _(e) ₊₁ , b _(i) ₁ _(*) =b _(i), and (b _(i) _(l) b _(i) _(l) _(*))=(b ₂ b ₁). (That is, for each l≦t−1, each b_(i) _(t) _(*) is a child of b_(i) _(l) in the rooted tree T_(β_(i_(ℓ))), each b_(i) _(l+1) is a descendent of b_(i) _(l) in the rooted tree T_(β_(i_(ℓ))) with the smallest subscript i_(l+1) in B_(p).) Subsubstep 4-2-3.

For each μ=(t−1), (t−2), . . . , 3, 2, 1 (note, in the reversed order): T_(β_(i_(μ))) ← T_(β_(i_(μ))) + (b_(i_(μ + 1))b_(i_(μ + 1)^(*))) − (b_(i_(μ))b_(i_(μ)^(*))). And T ₀ ←T ₀+(b _(i) ₁ b _(i) ₁ _(*)). Subsubstep 4-2-4. Update the coverage:

c_(T)←c_(T)(e)+1 if e=e₀ (and delete e₀from E₀if c_(T)(e₀)=w(e₀)), and c_(T)←c_(T)(e) otherwise. Erase labels: B_(p), D_(s), D_(e), m, m_(C), λ, ε, c and back to Step 3.

Remarks about Subprogram 4-2

In Subsubstep 4-2-2 (the construction of adjustment sequences S and I), i₁>i₁*≧i₂>i₂*≧ . . . ≧i_(t)=2>i_(t)*=1. And (b_(i_(μ))b_(i_(μ)^(*))) ∈ T_(β_(i_(μ))) for each μ=1, . . . , t−1, and is an edge contained in T_(β_(i_(μ))) + (b_(i_(μ + 1))b_(i_(μ + 1)^(*))). Similar to the basic Algorithm (with the argument of replaceability and fixed frame of references), we are also able to show that each T_(β_(i_(μ))) in Subsubstep 4-2-3 remains as a tree/forest. Additional Aspects of Invention

Various aspects of the present invention have been described above as an algorithm or mathematical approach. Embodiments of the present invention further include a method incorporating the algorithm as a step or steps, and further including input and output of data or results. The present invention also includes a computer program incorporating the algorithm or method, as well as a computing device running such a program and/or a processor programmed to perform the algorithm or method and/or output of data or results in a tangible form, such as on machine readable medium and/or use of such results to manipulate further devices or operations.

FIG. 46 is a schematic representation of a system according to a further aspect of the present invention. The system 10 includes a processor 12, a memory 14, an output device 16 and a computer readable medium 18. The system may take the form of or include a general or special purpose computer. The processor 12 may take any form and the memory 14 may be separate or integrated therewith. The output device 16 may be a display, a printer, a recording or storage device, or may take other forms. The computer readable medium 18 may take any form and preferably has computer executable instructions embodied thereon for performing the method of one or more of the algorithms described therein. The computer executable instructions are carried out by the processor. The medium 18 may be integrated with the rest of the system, or may be separate therefrom. The invention yet further includes a computer readable medium, such as a magnetic or optical storage medium, having a program such as described herein embodied on the medium.

Embodiments of the present invention include a method of analysis of data sets, such as genomic data, social science data, pharmaceutical data, chemical data and other data, using a computer or processor to analyze the data, resulting in identification of relationships, as described herein, such as relatedness of genomic, social science or chemical data and/or output of such results.

The various patents, patent applications, publications and other references mentioned herein are incorporated herein, in their entirety, by reference, as if reproduced herein. Those of skill in the art will appreciate that these incorporated references may provide additional approaches to accomplishing some steps of the present invention and provide teaching to assist in practicing the present invention.

Further variations on the herein discussed embodiments of the present invention will be clear to those of skill in the art. Such variations fall within the scope and teaching of the present invention. It is the following claims, including all equivalents, which define the scope of the present invention. 

1. A computer based method of clustering related data representing a plurality of objects of interest and information about levels of relatedness between pairs of the objects, the computer based method comprising: establishing on a computer a weighted graph G having a plurality of vertices and a plurality of weighted edges each joining a pair of the vertices, each vertex representing an object of interest and each edge having an integer weight w(e) representing a level of relatedness between the corresponding objects of interest and representing a set of w(e) parallel edges e joining the pair of vertices; finding, on the computer, for a given integer k, all possible subgraphs H of G satisfying the following dynamic “edge-to-vertex” ratio: ${\min\limits_{\forall P}\frac{{E\left( {H/P} \right)}}{{P} - 1}} > k$ where the minimum is taken over all possible partitions P of the vertex set of H, and E(H/P) is the set of edges crossing between parts of P; identifying each subgraph H found as a level-k community if it is maximal, wherein a subgraph H is defined as maximal if there are no larger subgraphs containing it that satisfy the dynamic “edge-to-vertex” ratio for the same k; and outputting from the computer all level-k communities.
 2. The computer based method of claim 1, wherein the level of relatedness between objects of interest represents a similarity or closeness between the objects of interest.
 3. The computer based method according to claim 1, wherein finding all possible subgraphs H of G further comprises: finding maximal subgraph H that, for every edge e, H-e contains k edge-disjoint spanning trees.
 4. The computer based method according to claim 1, wherein G is the only level-0 community and finding all possible subgraphs H of G further comprises: finding all level-k communities within a previously found level-(k−1) community; and repeating the finding step for k←k+1 until only single vertices remain.
 5. The computer based method according to claim 4 wherein finding all level-k communities within a level-(k−1) community H comprises: a) letting T_(1,) T_(2, . . . ,) T_(k−1) be edge-disjoint spanning trees of H; b) finding a spanning forest T_(k) in ${H - {\underset{i = 1}{\bigcup\limits^{k - 1}}{E\left( T_{i} \right)}}};$ c) finding an edge e that is not used up in the set of T_(i) for all i=1, . . . , k, the edge being a seed edge; d) establishing an edge subset B_(p), starting with p=1, which initially contains the seed edge e; e) expanding the subset B_(p), recursively, for each T_(i) and each e′εB_(p), by adding all edges e* of any circuit in T_(i)+e′; f) repeating step (e) until either; (Case 1) B_(p) connects two unconnected portions of T_(k); or (Case 2) B_(p) does not connect two unconnected portions of T_(k) and, for every T_(i) and every e′εB_(p), the circuit in T_(i)+e′ contains no edge joining the same vertices as any edge in B_(p); g) if Case 1 of step (f) occurs, adjusting the set of spanning forests {T_(1,) T_(2, . . . ,) T_(k)} and expanding the spanning forest T_(k) and, thereafter, repeating step (c) for the adjusted set of forests {T_(1,) T_(2, . . . ,) T_(k)}; h) if Case 2 of step (f) occurs, storing the subset B_(p) and setting p←p+1 and repeating step (c) with an edge e that also does not join the same vertices as any edge in any of B₁, B₂, . . . B_(p−1); i) merging B_(p)s that overlap; and j) outputting the set of subgraphs induced by stored subsets B_(p) resulting from step (i), each of which is a level-k community of G and contained in H.
 6. The computer based method according to claim 5, wherein expanding the forest T_(k) in step (g) further comprises: recording a track of replacement for every edge of B_(p); and following the recording of the track of replacement: adjusting the set of forests {T_(1,) T_(2, . . .) T_(k)} by adding the seed edge, thereby expanding the spanning forest T_(k) by connecting unconnected portions of T_(k).
 7. The computer based method according to claim 6, wherein recording the track of replacement for every edge of B_(p) comprises: recording the track of replacement for the seed edge e by initializing sequences I(e)=Ø and S(e)={e}; and recording the track of replacement for each edge e* in the circuit of T_(i)+e′ by sequences I(e*)=I(e′)i and S(e*)=S(e′)e′.
 8. The computer based method according to claim 6 wherein expanding the spanning forest T_(k) further comprises: letting e′ be the edge of B_(p) joining two unconnected portions of T_(k) and letting I(e′)=i₁i₂ . . . i_(h−1) and S(e′)=e₁e₂ . . . e_(h) where e_(h)=the seed edge; and setting T_(k)←T_(k)+e′ and for each r=1, . . . , h−1, setting T_(i) _(r) ←T_(i) _(r) +e_(r)−e_(r+1).
 9. A system for determining a level of relatedness of data within a dataset, comprising: a computer processor; a memory in communication with the processor; an output device in communication with the processor; and a computer readable medium having computer-executable instructions embodied therein for performing a method comprising: establishing a weighted graph G having a plurality of vertices and a plurality of weighted edges each joining a pair of the vertices, each vertex representing an object of interest and each edge having an integer weight w(e) representing a level of relatedness between the corresponding objects and representing a set of w(e) parallel edges e joining the pair of vertices; finding, for a given integer k, all possible subgraphs H of G satisfying the following dynamic “edge-to-vertex” ratio: ${\min\limits_{\forall P}\frac{{E\left( {H/P} \right)}}{{P} - 1}} > k$  where the minimum is taken over all possible partitions P of the vertex set of H, and E(H/P) is the set of edges crossing between parts of P; identifying each subgraph H found as a level-k community if it is maximal, wherein a subgraph H is defined as maximal if there are no larger subgraphs containing it that satisfy the dynamic “edge-to-vertex” ratio for the same k; and outputting, on the output device, all level-k communities the processor being operable to execute the computer-executable instructions embodied on the computer readable medium.
 10. The system of claim 9, wherein the level of relatedness between objects of interest represents a similarity or closeness between the objects of interest.
 11. The system of claim 9, wherein finding all possible subgraphs H of G further comprises: finding maximal subgraph H that, for every edge e, H-e contains k edge-disjoint spanning trees.
 12. The system of claim 9, wherein G is the only level-0 community and finding all possible subgraphs H of G further comprises: finding all level-k communities within a previously found level-(k−1) community; and repeating the finding step for k←k+1 until only single vertices remain.
 13. The system of claim 12, wherein finding all level-k communities within a level-(k−1) community H comprises: a) letting T_(1,) T_(2, . . . ,) T_(k−1) be edge-disjoint spanning trees of H; b) finding a spanning forest T_(k) in ${H - {\underset{i = 1}{\bigcup\limits^{k - 1}}{E\left( T_{i} \right)}}};$ c) finding an edge e that is not used up in the set of T_(i) for all i=1, . . . , k, the edge being a seed edge; d) establishing an edge subset B_(p), starting with p=1, which initially contains the seed edge e; e) expanding the subset B_(p), recursively, for each T_(i) and each e′εB_(p), by adding all edges e* of any circuit in T_(i)+e′; f) repeating step (e) until either; (Case 1) B_(p) connects two unconnected portions of T_(k); or (Case 2) B_(p) does not connect two unconnected portions of T_(k) and, for every T_(i) and every e′εB_(p), the circuit in T_(i)+e′ contains no edge joining the same vertices as any edge in B_(p); g) if Case 1 of step (f) occurs, adjusting the set of spanning forests {T₁, T₂, . . . , T_(k)} and expanding the spanning forest T_(k) and, thereafter, repeating step (c) for the adjusted set of forests {T₁, T₂, . . . , T_(k)}; h) if Case 2 of step (f) occurs, storing the subset B_(p) and setting p←p+1 and repeating step (c) with an edge e that also does not join the same vertices as any edge in any of B₁, B₂, . . . B_(p−1); i) merging B_(p)s that overlap; and j) outputting the set of subgraphs induced by stored subsets B_(p) resulting from step (i), each of which is a level-k community of G and contained in H.
 14. The system of claim 13, wherein expanding the forest T_(k) in step (g) further comprises: recording a track of replacement for every edge of B_(p); and following the recording of the track of replacement: adjusting the set of forests {T_(1,) T_(2, . . . ,) T_(k)} by adding the seed edge, thereby expanding the spanning forest T_(k) by connecting unconnected portions of T_(k).
 15. The computer based method according to claim 14, wherein recording the track of replacement for every edge of B_(p) comprises: recording the track of replacement for the seed edge e by initializing sequences I(e)=Ø and S(e)={e}; and recording the track of replacement for each edge e* in the circuit of T_(i)+e′ by sequences I(e*)=I(e′)i and S(e*)=S(e′)e′.
 16. The system of claim 14, wherein expanding the spanning forest T_(k) further comprises: letting e′ be the edge of B_(p) joining two unconnected portions of T_(k) and letting I(e′)=i₁i₂ . . . i_(h−1) and S(e′)=e₁e₂ . . . e_(h) where e_(h)=the seed edge; and setting T_(k)←T_(k)+e′ and for each r=1, . . . , h−1, setting T_(i) _(r) ←T_(i) _(r) +e_(r)−e_(r+1)′.
 17. A computer readable medium having computer-executable instructions embodied therein for performing a method of clustering related data representing a plurality of objects of interest and information about levels of relatedness between pairs of the objects, the method comprising: establishing on a computer a weighted graph G having a plurality of vertices and a plurality of weighted edges each joining a pair of the vertices, each vertex representing an object of interest and each edge having an integer weight w(e) representing a level of relatedness between the corresponding objects of interest and representing a set of w(e) parallel edges e joining the pair of vertices; finding, on the computer, for a given integer k, all possible subgraphs H of G satisfying the following dynamic “edge-to-vertex” ratio: ${\min\limits_{\forall P}\frac{{E\left( {H/P} \right)}}{{P} - 1}} > k$ where the minimum is taken over all possible partitions P of the vertex set of H, and E(H/P) is the set of edges crossing between parts of P; identifying each subgraph H found as a level-k community if it is maximal, wherein a subgraph H is defined as maximal if there are no larger subgraphs containing it that satisfy the dynamic “edge-to-vertex” ratio for the same k; and outputting from the computer all level-k communities.
 18. The computer medium of claim 17, wherein the level of relatedness between objects of interest represents a similarity or closeness between the objects of interest.
 19. The computer medium of claim 17, wherein finding all possible subgraphs H of G further comprises: finding maximal subgraph H that, for every edge e, H-e contains k edge-disjoint spanning trees.
 20. The computer medium of claim 17, wherein G is the only level-0 community and finding all possible subgraphs H of G further comprises: finding all level-k communities within a previously found level-(k−1) community; and repeating the finding step for k←k+1 until only single vertices remain.
 21. The computer medium of claim 20 wherein finding all level-k communities within a level-(k−1) community H comprises: a) letting T₁, T₂, . . . T_(k−1) be edge-disjoint spanning trees of H; b) finding a spanning forest T_(k) in ${H - {\underset{i = 1}{\bigcup\limits^{k - 1}}{E\left( T_{i} \right)}}};$ c) finding an edge e that is not used up in the set of T_(i) for all i=1, . . . , k, the edge being a seed edge; d) establishing an edge subset B_(p), starting with p=1, which initially contains the seed edge e; e) expanding the subset B_(p), recursively, for each T_(i) and each e′εB_(p), by adding all edges e* of any circuit in T_(i)+e′; f) repeating step (e) until either; (Case 1) B_(p) connects two unconnected portions of T_(k); or (Case 2) B_(p) does not connect two unconnected portions of T_(k) and, for every T_(i) and every e′εB_(p), the circuit in T_(i)+e′ contains no edge joining the same vertices as any edge in B_(p); g) if Case 1 of step (f) occurs, adjusting the set of spanning forests {T_(1,) T_(2, . . . ,) T_(k)} and expanding the spanning forest T_(k) and, thereafter, repeating step (c) for the adjusted set of forests {T_(1,) T_(2, . . . ,) T_(k)}; h) if Case 2 of step (f) occurs, storing the subset B_(p) and setting p←p+1 and repeating step (c) with an edge e that also does not join the same vertices as any edge in any of B₁, B₂, . . . B_(p); i) merging B_(p)s that overlap; and j) outputting the set of subgraphs induced by stored subsets B_(p) resulting from step (i), each of which is a level-k community of G and contained in H.
 22. The computer medium of claim 21, wherein expanding the forest T_(k) in step (g) further comprises: recording a track of replacement for every edge of B_(p); and following the recording of the track of replacement: adjusting the set of forests {T_(1,) T_(2, . . . ,) T_(k)} by adding the seed edge, thereby expanding the spanning forest T_(k) by connecting unconnected portions of T_(k).
 23. The computer medium of claim 22, wherein recording the track of replacement for every edge of B_(p) comprises: recording the track of replacement for the seed edge e by initializing sequences I(e)=Ø and S(e)={e}; and recording the track of replacement for each edge e* in the circuit of T_(i)+e′ by sequences I(e*)=I(e′)i and S(e*)=S(e′)e′.
 24. The computer medium of claim 22, wherein expanding the spanning forest T_(k) further comprises: letting e′ be the edge of B_(p) joining two unconnected portions of T_(k) and letting I(e′)=i₁i₂ . . . i_(h−1) and S(e′)=e₁e₂ . . . e_(h) where e_(h)=the seed edge; and setting T_(k)←T_(k)+e′ and for each r=1, . . . , h−1, setting T_(i) _(r) ←T_(i) _(r) +e_(r)−e_(r+1). 